- From: Mats Palmgren via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 13:06:44 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
FYI, we intend to [implement](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1368555) `-webkit-appearance` with support for **all** values that Chrome supports. Sadly, that seems to be what is required to be web-compatible. I don't think we're particularly interested in implementing an unprefixed `appearance` property at this point. It would bring zero benefits with a lot web-compat risk. (If Chrome implements and ships that first, then we can reconsider.) As for standardization, I think it would probably be more useful to add `-webkit-appearance` to the [compat spec](https://compat.spec.whatwg.org/). > However, would it still be web incompatible if you did not alias the two? Right, we didn't try that. Assuming you cascade it separately and that `appearance: none` trumps the prefixed property(ies), then you get problems like: ```css input { -webkit-appearance: none; -moz-appearance: none; appearance: none; } input[type="checkbox"] { -webkit-appearance: checkbox; /* oops forgot to add the other properties here */ } ``` where the used value will be `none`. I'm also worried about about stray `appearance: none` that web developers added at some point and then forgot about. etc. Personally, I doubt an unprefixed `appearance` can be web-compatible in any form. (Sorry, I don't mean to discourage you.) Anyway, `auto` must of course be the default for `appearance` if it's a separate property that trumps the other ones, so I withdraw my original request. -- GitHub Notification of comment by MatsPalmgren Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1250#issuecomment-306788821 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 7 June 2017 13:06:51 UTC