W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2014

Re: [css-pseudo] ::selection issues

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 13:51:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDsK0GLnn9V778BMorrZxzoG_vi5Ke8gVGdotKBsMOuXA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 1:35 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 2014-11-12 13:26 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 9:50 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>> > 2. The current list of acceptable properties is
>> >    - color
>> >    - background-color
>> >    - cursor
>> >    - outline
>> >    - text-decoration
>> >    - text-emphasis-color (but not text-emphasis)
>> >    - text-shadow
>> >
>> >    a. Are these acceptable?
>> >    b. Should any other properties be added?
>> >    c. All but the first two are currently optional. Should any others be
>> > required?
>>
>> Why aren't we just using the ::first-line list?
>
> ::selection is implemented very differently from ::first-line;
> ::first-line works like a rendering object, whereas ::selection
> changes the painting behavior of text.  You also don't want to allow
> ::selection styles to affect layout.

Makes sense.

>> > 3. All four browser engines drop the OS colors with when either of 'color'
>> >    or 'background-color' is unspecified. This means we have to violate
>> >    dbaron's #2 requirement (that the OS colors be representable as a UA
>> >    style rule):
>> >      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Oct/0268.html
>> >
>> >    Given that, I'm assuming this is a Web-compat requirement.
>> >    Shall this be required behavior?
>>
>> Assuming it's web-compat, yes.
>
> Is someone going to check that assumption in some way?

I assume.  It would likely be a case of "let's try the better way, and
see if we get compat complaints".  I was just saying that *if* it was
web-compat required, then I'm fine with putting it in the spec.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 21:51:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:26 UTC