W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2016

Re: [css-selectors] :focus and :checked

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 10:46:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDSz8Q61fSa31MHhKHwVAWUc12xjJRWPVszQ_U17_6Zsg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 5, 2016, at 2:15 AM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:
>>
>> But the definition of this is in HTML, not CSS, and IIRC I failed to convince the whatwg.
>
> Why can't we just create our own independent definition in CSS for the :checked behavior, and then let WHAT change their definition to match the new reality once browsers implement it our way?

Because we're not jerks, basically (and neither is WHATWG here).  The
previous contention was for good reasons, based on actual implementor
feedback. Those are the same implementors that read and implement
*our* specs.  The fact that the discussion happened in the HTML spec
rather than a CSS spec is irrelevant; the feature itself was
more-or-less rejected at the time.  Reopening the discussion with
changed requirements and/or data is reasonable, but it's extremely
*un*reasonable to just treat it as "nuts to y'all, CSS can do what it
wants".

If WHATWG was unreasonable or rejected it for reasons not related to
implementor concern, the situation would be different. But that's not
the case here.  This has nothing to do with venue right now.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 8 August 2016 20:43:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 8 August 2016 20:43:59 UTC