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

Re: Inclusion of :drag-over in CSS4 UI

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:22:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOACb=+n2vFa6d=E=FybPgnB5aKA8NaGBuA+pQiJC6Fs=BujdA@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:35, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 09/23/2011 08:41 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>>
>> Two (checkbox) choices:
>>
>> 1. :drop-zone - spec'd as Firefox implements
>> https://developer.mozilla.org/en/CSS/:-moz-drag-over - added to
>> *CSS3-UI*, since it sounds like a WebKit implementation would be
>> imminent, thus being CR-ready in short order.
>>
>> 2. :valid-drop-zone, :invalid-drop-zone - spec'd as a :drop-zone that
>> is valid/invalid per Tab's suggested text (edited), added to
>> *CSS4-UI*, since there are zero implementations today.
>>    :valid-drop-zone - a drop zone that accepts the type of data being
>> dragged
>>    :invalid-drop-zone - a drop zone that doesn't accept the type of
>> data being dragged
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> Thought:
> This should go into CSS4-UI.

Very well. Per feedback from Ojan and fantasai, captured here for CSS4-UI:

http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css4-ui#more-selectors

No change to CSS3-UI.


> CSS3-UI should be in feature freeze right now.
> If it's not something
> that's been implemented interoperably for years without a spec,

e.g. hit-testing.

> and just
> needs a spec, then imho it shouldn't be a candidate for CSS3-UI.

In general yes that's the approach I'm taking for CSS3-UI. If there's
*one* implementation then I'm considering adding things on a
case-by-case basis (though less and less so), and marking them "at
risk".

> Like, we need to cut off and ship CR at some point. :)

There have been enough non-trivial fixes and in particular the
specification of text-overflow, and there's already been one publisher
that errantly read/cited an obsolete 2003 CSS3-Text CR for
text-overflow rather than the Editor's CSS3-UI draft.

I'm considering calling for the publication of a LCWD with open
issues, knowing that once those are resolved, there will be (at least)
another LCWD before a CR.

Any objections to publishing a CSS3-UI LCWD with known open issues?

(more accurately reflects the state of the spec, i.e. no new features
etc., but not conformant to the letter of W3C process which requires
no outstanding issues to go to LC - yes I'm saying the process is
broken in this regard and have raised the issue with the appropriate
parties, see also and please +1 a TPAC session on the topic [1])

Thanks,

Tantek

[1] http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2011/SessionIdeas#The_W3C_Publication_Process_is_broken:_lets_fix_it.21

-- 
http://tantek.com/ - I made an HTML5 tutorial! http://tantek.com/html5
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 17:24:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:44 GMT