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

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-ui] Should interoperability be a goal for the `accent-color` spec? (#5480)

From: Mason Freed via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 23:36:19 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-703001272-1601681778-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
> Okay, that's not what the current proposal says. ^_^ Fixing that would help, since you've continually been _referring to_ the current proposal.

Thanks. Help would be appreciated in "fixing" this issue, as I've tried numerous times and apparently failed 100% of the time. I wish I could just delete all of the comments here, and refer back to the [original issue comment](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5480#issue-687595307). Do you think, if I added "A" and "B" labels there, that comment still explains the question we're trying to resolve?


> > I suspect others on this thread will vote for option B.
> 
> I would not take that as an assumption. There's been a lot of confusion around this issue, and _nobody_ wants a specification that will end up being worthless to authors due to giving totally different results across browsers.

Reading back through comments on **this thread**, I think these are the only clearly stated positions, to date:
 * @mfreed7 [supports option A](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5480#issuecomment-682233577)
 * @tabatkins [supports option A](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5480#issuecomment-702983695)
 * @samuelbradshaw [supports option B](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5480#issuecomment-701515087).
 * @x-Jake-x [supports option B](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5480#issuecomment-702419592).


> > masonfreed: Looking for a direction, interop vs hint. Interop is full proposal as presented. B is a striped down version with no normative text or guidance on how to do accent-color. A or B with a link in the thread.
> 
> This is where you've been saying "Option A" is "what's currently in the proposal", _not_ the more generic thrust you're talking about now. If you don't remember tying "Option A" so explicitly to the exact current text, that's part of the confusion. ^_^

I agree to saying exactly that. But I **intended** that as a shorthand for: "when trying to understand what Option A is, see the current proposal, which is one **example** of Option A. It tries to explain how to use each color on each control. There are, of course, many other ways to implement Option A. But let's debate that later, after we decide that Option A is the right way to go." I can see how people might have mis-interpreted that shorthand, and I should have been more clear.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by mfreed7
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5480#issuecomment-703001272 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 2 October 2020 23:36:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:20 UTC