- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 00:02:13 +0200
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
> On 21 Jul 2015, at 22:30, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > > Prompted by plh, Tab and I just went over the Selectors 4 spec, > to figure out what's ready to polish up and send to CR and what > looks like it should stay in WD. Here's a list of what we propose > to keep and defer: As discussed during the teleconf, even if there is no implementation, things that have been reviewed / discussed (not just dumped into the spec), and have straightforward semantics not subject to controversy should say at risk rather than be deferred. Here are some selectors in your maybe defer list which I think we should keep: > ? :focus-within - This has been discussed by the WG and reviewed by several people - It is straightforward - Bloomberg and/or I will be contributing tests for it in the near future > ? :read-only and :read-write I think these should stay, even without at-risk: - :read-only is implemented in Gecko (prefixed) and Chrome (unprefixed) - :read-write is implemented in Gecko (prefixed), Chrome (unprefixed), and Safari (unprefixed) - They are already defined in a REC: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/disabled-elements.html#selector-read-only > ? :placeholder-shown Has implementation in webkit nightlies: https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/172826 - Florian
Received on Sunday, 26 July 2015 22:02:43 UTC