W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2018

Re: [css-scrollbars] Thoughts on FPWD

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 09:00:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEV2_WYbqSttHtuyeSmbJv7cNeB8hcZbbJ8J1vF=vVSObUeyRQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 3:38 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> Tantek,
> We discussed the CSS Scrollbars spec at the Sydney F2F;
>   https://drafts.csswg.org/css-scrollbars-1/
>   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2018Jul/0031.html
> but ran out of time before we were able to conclude on an FPWD.
> Sorry for holding it up. It seemed to have prompted a lot of people
> to look more closely at the spec, though, and some good issues were
> filed.

I took a closer look at the issues you pointed out:

> My take on FPWD is that a few things should be resolved first --
> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1958 =WG=
> We almost, but apparently didn't, resolve on adding scrollbar-width.
> To follow up on the F2F discussion, I think we should, as discussed
> at the F2F, resolve to add it with the superset of the values
> discussed,

We did discuss (and remove) any objections to adding it at the f2f, so
that part was already done.

The part we failed to resolve on was FPWD, not because of width, but
because you objected to the colors:

<TabAtkins> astearns: Would you object to fpwd with the colors as stated?
<TabAtkins> fantasai: I think I would.

> and, as discussed, mark brightly in the draft that the
> value space is under discussion

That was already done with a note during the f2f.

> (and also that renaming it
> scrollbar-max-width, if we choose to allow <length> values, is also
> a possibility).

IMO that was more theoretical than any kind of objection, so no need
to process nor indicate that for FPWD.

> We can then file a follow-up issue on the value
> space and another on the name (possibly repurposing #2966).

I took a look at 2966. I don't think a bikeshedding issue is worthy of
its own explicit note in the FPWD.

> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2879 =WG=
> Strongly agree to adding some shorthands here, and they should be
> in the FPWD. This should be pretty simple.

As noted in that issue, I think a shorthand would both be good, and we
should consider a scrollbar-color *property* per issue 2993


I'd rather resolve on both of those rather than something halfway.

> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2009
> There's a lot of controversy around styling scrollbars, and more
> than any other spec we've published so far,

I think that's selectively forgetful of all the drama around -webkit-
prefixed properties in mid-to-late 2000s but whatever, controversy is
not a measure of (un)success.

> I think it's important
> that we have a good discussion of the scope and why we're taking
> this approach and rejecting others. There are a lot of comments
> in the various open issues from which you can lift all the relevant
> arguments to make in this section: it'd be worth going through them
> and incorporating them into your scope section / introduction.

I've looked through them all and they're all variants of "just
implement all the -webkit- pseudos because we think we need all that
power" (without any actual use-cases that demonstrate that claim).

If you find a specific argument there with merit, please raise it,
otherwise I think we should leave it to processing the various issues.

Aside: what's the group etiquette / process when folks are spamming
many issues with the same off-topic commentary / proposals?

> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1960 =WG=
> I don't think we can in good conscience accept FPWD without also
> accepting this issue :)

I filed the issue :)

Really the follow-up to that issues is 2993. Not the continued
off-issue insistence on tons of scrollbar pseudos.


> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2967
> Might be worth addressing if we care about patents and FPWD;
> otherwise discussion can be deferred until after FPWD.

I'm ok considering this for FPWD.

> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2898
> Clarifying what “track” and “face” are, and explaining a little
> better how colors map to other parts of a scrollbar or giving some
> advice and a few examples of how additional colors are derived from
> the given colors when needed would probably help everyone understand
> the intent of the feature a little better.

I'm ok considering bikeshedding track/face for FPWD, they're legacy
names taken from the -ms-scrollbar properties.

> Overall, I strongly agree with your approach to scrollbar styling,
> and I recommend to the CSSWG to adopt the spec. I look forward to
> discussing the =WG= issues on the agenda, to reading your scope
> edits and clarifications, and to approving FPWD for this spec.

Great. I think per the above there are some non-trivial issues to
discuss before FPWD. Let's see how many we can get through.

Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2018 16:01:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 22 August 2018 16:01:35 UTC