- From: Florian Rivoal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 15:54:10 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Ah, I understand now. Chrome only switches to a `text` cursor over link while selecting them if the link's cursor has not been overridden by the user, and uses the user specified value regardless of selection if there is one. Note that other browsers don't do this: safari changes the cursor to `text` while selecting even if there is another user specified cursor, and firefox does not style the cursor differently while selecting. My suggestion would be that just like the UA is allowed to do whatever it wants over the cursor over native user-agent controls such as scrollbars, resizers, or other native UI widgets, the UA should also be allowed to use whatever cursor it wants to reflect a particular state of the UA. This would include showing the `wait` cursor when the page / browser is unresponsive, and could include allowing the browser to use the `text` cursor while selecting. I'd consider this an editorial clarification over the existing sentence that allows the UAs to ignore the `cursor` property (**addition in bold**): > User agents may ignore the cursor property over native user-agent controls such as scrollbars, resizers, or other native UI widgets e.g. those that may be used inside some user agent specific implementations of form elements. **User agents may also ignore the cursor property and display a cursor of their choice to indicate various states of the UA's user interface, such as a busy cursor when the page is not responding, or a text cursor when the user is performing text selection.** This seems enough to make it clear that neither chrome nor safari's behaviors are spec violations. If we want to go for further interoperability in the future, I suggest tackling that in the next level of the spec, in the interest of wrapping up this level. @EiraGe, would that work for you? -- GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1691#issuecomment-323391476 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 18 August 2017 15:54:10 UTC