W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2011

Re: cursor: zoom-in and zoom-out

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:15:29 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTinGzYUXo5rQ4cNrkKDXB0u+ZELmJ3=f5R8kc=Ey@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 04:42, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:52:23 +0100, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 07:01, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> * Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>>>>
>>>> With the release of Opera 11.10, we added two new cursor types:
>>>> -o-zoom-in
>>>> and -o-zoom-in. (These are used for a new image viewer.) Mozilla already
>>>> supports -moz-zoom-in and -moz-zoom-out,
>>
>> Verified in Firefox and I only have Opera 11.01 on MacOS X so I am
>> unable to verify the support for -o-zoom-in and -o-zoom-out but your
>> word on a second implementation is good enough for an editor's draft.
>>
>>>> so perhaps we should start
>>>> thinking about standardizing this? I can imagine it would be generally
>>>> useful on the larger web for things like zoom-able maps.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> Added to CSS3 UI editor's draft (since this new feature can exit CR
>> once we complete the LCWD bounce dance cycle).
>>
>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-ui/#cursor
>
> Thanks! Given that this is not exactly a new feature, would it be fair game
> to remove the -o-prefix ASAP before people come to rely on it?

I think this is a very interesting question.

I'm leaning towards saying that *in this particular case* it may make
more sense to allow unprefixed implementations (of 'zoom-in' and
'zoom-out') rather than encourage implementations to only support
vendor-prefixed versions.

However that's just my opinion and is a larger matter that the working
group needs to consider.


> (I'm not too
> familiar with the conventions for vendor prefixes.)

There is very little "official" guidance on vendor prefixes - you're not alone.

There was a flurry of email list and telcon and f2f discussion
activity around vendor-prefixes and yet I can't find *any* summary of
conclusions / current state of guidance on vendor-prefixes (insert the
I hate email and it's lack of community memory, inaccessibility,
unsearchability problems).

So instead, I've written this up on our wiki:

http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/vendor-prefixes

Please take a look and feel free to edit, add your opinions,
additional open questions etc.

Multiple opinions appreciated - let's capture the diversity and figure
out best paths forward. EXCEPT, not in email. We already plenty of
that (search last year's www-style archives), and nothing persistent
came out of it.

Just edit the wiki.

I've added the specific case of cursor:zoom-in and zoom-out for consideration.

http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/vendor-prefixes#cursor-zoom-in-zoom-out


Thanks,

Tantek

-- 
http://tantek.com/ - I made an HTML5 tutorial! http://tantek.com/html5
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 23:16:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:38 GMT