Re: [csswg-drafts] [selectors] propagation of the :focus pseudo

The CSS Working Group just discussed `propagation of the :focus pseudo`.

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: propagation of the :focus pseudo<br>
&lt;dael> github topic: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1240<br>
&lt;dael> Florian: When we introduced focus-within we tried to clarify focus and active. What we attempted was to say active and focus propagate to/from the same time. The spec prose for that isn't very good. I think I authred that, sorry. It also contradicts HTML.<br>
&lt;dael> Florian: I think we should clarify we do what HTML does.<br>
&lt;dael> Florian: Secondary, I think we resolved on a preferred behavior which was also in disgreement with HTML. We should either try and convince HTML to change their behavior if we care about this. For now, we should point to thier propagation method.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Is their method well tested?<br>
&lt;dael> Florian: I think it is. I don't think it was fully interop before. IE or Edge didn't used to have it, but there's more interop now.<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: I haven't looked recently, but I thought most still propagates in Edge.<br>
&lt;tantek> s/tantek/???<br>
&lt;astearns> s/tantek /gregwhitworth /<br>
&lt;dael> Florian: I jsut tried recently and it didn't obviously propagate in the general case. I still think it would be better if it went both ways. There is an open issue on that in whatwg. I don't say we drop this, but having the contradiction isn't useful<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: So there's an open issue on whatwg.<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: Could have sworn I tried to bring that back to CSSWG. It seemed to most of the people in this group felt this want the right behavior. Id idn't want people not in the room superceeding that. I didn't want to lose that. I can test more throughly.<br>
&lt;tantek> s/tantek/gregwhitworth<br>
&lt;dael> Florian: IN spirit I agree, but focus is fairly complex. It's a bit of a rabbit hole and I don't think we want to take over all of that. If we want some part we need to figure out where to split.<br>
&lt;dael> Florian: Looks like we won't resolve, but please look @ GH<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Ccan we resolve on removing the contradiction? Or is it better to keep it open so the issue gets more focus.<br>
&lt;fantasai> testcase: data:text/html;charset=utf-8;base64,PCFET0NUWVBFIGh0bWw+DQogIDxzdHlsZT4NCiAgICA6Zm9jdXMgeyBiYWNrZ3JvdW5kOiBvcmFuZ2U7fQ0KICA8L3N0eWxlPg0KICA8bGFiZWwgZm9yPXlvPkZvbzwvbGFiZWw+DQogIDxpbnB1dCBpZD15bz4=<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> What's the publication status of Selectors 4?  Does it need to be finalized?<br>
&lt;fantasai> ?<br>
&lt;dael> Florian: I thought it was better, but gregwhitworth argues that we could lose all control.<br>
&lt;fantasai> AmeliaBR: Lots of mess, iirc<br>
&lt;dael> gregwhitworth: I hadn't given it too much thought. Can we talk about this in Paris? Or next WG call with everyone on? Other imple were interested before.<br>
&lt;fantasai> +1 to f2f<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Seems like bringing this to the F2F is a fair idea. It's not that far. Let's do that. I'll put the F2F tag on it.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Please do add information to both whatwg issue and ours as you find it.<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1240#issuecomment-306960201 using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 8 June 2017 00:01:20 UTC