W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > August 2020

Re: [csswg-drafts] [mediaqueries-5] duplication of `forced-colors: active` and `prefers-contrast: forced` (#5433)

From: Florian Rivoal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 02:12:31 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-674468272-1597543950-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Whether or not its the right conclusion is a separate question, but the current idea is:

They are indeed the exact same thing. We wish we had though of defining it as `prefers-contrast: forced` first, but we didn't, so MS shipped `force-color: active` already. We thought we still liked `prefers-contrast: forced` better, so we defined that, but since `forced-colors: active` shipped, we're keeping it as well for compat reasons. The fact that one is the desired syntax, and the other is the legacy alias isn't currently clear in the spec, but an editorial cleanup should make that more obvious.

So, with that in mind, I think we can take 3 stances:
1. I think all is all is fine, just do the editorial clean up to make it clear why there's two.
2. I agree that `prefers-contrast: forced` is the better design, but the benefit isn't strong enough to justify a "good syntax" and "legacy syntax", so we should revert the decision taken in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3856 to add `forced` to `prefers contrast`.
3. I disagree that `prefers-contrast: forced` is the better design. Keeping forced colors separate from contrast preferences is desirable, regardless of compat. On that basis, we should revert the decision taken in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3856 to add `forced` to `prefers contrast`.

----

My stance is (1), and as the spec's Editor, I'll do the editorial clean-up to at least make it clear what the current situation is.

I believe your stance is closer to (3). I'd suggest holding off just a bit to see if the clean-up I'm about to do makes things better in your opinion. If it doesn't, it's probably worth re-reading https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3856 (I'd say from the top up to and including the teleconf minutes of June 11, after that it goes into a number of tangeants, most of which are answered by https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2943 or by the editorial clean-up I'm about to make), and responding to the points that were made in favor of the resolution that was taken then.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5433#issuecomment-674468272 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Sunday, 16 August 2020 02:12:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:13 UTC