W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > July 2018

[csswg-drafts] Is it still necessary for a UA to preserve some aspects of form controls even if the `appearance` is `none`?

From: 張俊芝 via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 12:19:57 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issues.opened-343322795-1532175597-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Zhang-Junzhi has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts:

== Is it still necessary for a UA to preserve some aspects of form controls even if the `appearance` is `none`? ==
[User Interface Module Level 4](https://www.w3.org/TR/css-ui-4/#propdef-appearance) has the following statements:

> However, the UA must preserve aspects of the form control which are necessary to operate the control with its original semantics. This does not include aspects of a control which are merely needed to observe the state the control is in, only those that are needed for the user to be able to modify the state of the control. The UA may however give them a different look and feel as long as it remains possible to operate the control. For example, the slider of an <input type=range> is preserved (or replaced by an equivalent mechanism) even if appearance is none as it would otherwise not be possible to change the value of the range with the mouse or touchscreen.

The statements aren't true any longer, as a <input> slider is now possible to be represented with [CSS attr() function](https://www.w3.org/TR/css-values-3/#attr-notation) in tandem with [Shadow DOM](https://www.w3.org/TR/shadow-dom/)(By setting the <input> as a slottable inside its shadow host).

I cannot think of a control whose necessary semantics depend on information outside of its attributes, and so does its representation; or I am happy to be proven wrong if somebody gives an example of a controls of such kind.

And further, in theory, the "preservation" statments underdefine the appearance of **every** control whose `appearance` is `none` would possibly be(unless the spec clearly enumrates all the preservation senarios).

So I would like to suggest the spec drops the "preservation" statments, because it's not necessary any longer(we can represent them with new standards), authors needs to be garanteed that they really completely manage representation of any control on which they set `appearance` to `none`.

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2944 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 21 July 2018 12:19:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 21 July 2018 12:19:59 UTC