- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 16:15:28 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed ``[css-ui] Should interoperability be a goal for the `accent-color` spec?``. <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <dael> Topic: [css-ui] Should interoperability be a goal for the `accent-color` spec?<br> <dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5480<br> <dael> Rossen_: Based on last week's discussion we want to discuss the accent-color topic one more time and see if this is something we should pursue and how<br> <dael> Rossen_: We're going to cap this to 10 minutes. If we cannot come to consensus we'll push back to GH until consensus there.<br> <masonfreed> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5480#issuecomment-697747055<br> <dael> Rossen_: I want to have chrishtr or masonfreed summerize outcome they're looking for and ask group if consensus. If none I want clear constructive feedback.<br> <dael> masonfreed: Make it crisp. Looking for resolution for A or B in link above<br> <Rossen_> q?<br> <dael> 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.<br> <florian> q+<br> <dael> Rossen_: Questions or feedback?<br> <dael> florian: Seems to be a linked issue from fantasai is a variant C. It's closer to B but not identical.<br> <bkardell_> are others experiencing problems with w3c infra today? I can't get to the meeting link<br> <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5544<br> <dael> florian: That one ^<br> <dael> florian: If fantasai is on maybe she can explain. Part of conversation<br> <Rossen_> ack florian<br> <dael> fantasai: We have accent-color list of color but use of colors is not clear. Expalins primary, terciary accent colors. If you pick a bunch of colors of the rainbow you have no idea how they're used. In general noticed platforms have 1 color so multiple maybe not needed. Do have problem about whereever color is we don't know how used with respect to bg color.<br> <dael> fantasai: We allow UA to adjust lumenence.<br> <dael> fantasai: My prop is define accent color to be a list of alternative. You expect to pick a bunch of colors and UA picks the one with correct amount of contrast. Rather then make it be about different usage but about which has right contrast<br> <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5480#issuecomment-682242811<br> <dael> fantasai: I think overall my take that TabAtkins comment ^ is the key piece of the design<br> <dael> fantasai: [reads it]<br> <dael> fantasai: The idea is the UA should be able to do what it feels is appropriate and we shouldn't pin down on how to use the color but should make sure there's enough contrast.<br> <dael> fantasai: I think going in direction of allowing UA to use color in what pieces it wants and make multi color be about right contrast helps us get there<br> <dael> masonfreed: I didn't see that other issue, I appologize. Sounds like option B-lite. Less interop than option B. For purpose of today is that a vote for option B and we go on and define option B more concretely if that's as the way group wants to go?<br> <dael> fantasai: Maybe? I think so?<br> <jensimmons> q+<br> <dael> Rossen_: Are we ready to vote out option A? Does anyone want to keep A?<br> <dael> Rossen_: Sounds to me like varients of B but if that's what group favors lets move on with additional details to break down B into more details.<br> <dael> masonfreed: I should say Chromium favors A. However we really want this so we would accept B.<br> <dael> fantasai: Looking more I htink my proposal is areally a different thing. Both A and B define accent-color. As to how much detail that's a different thing<br> <dael> masonfreed: Level of detail is the question for today.<br> <Rossen_> q?<br> <dael> fantasai: I would go with B more details. A lot of specific cases in A should be examples. Here's an example of how you could. That makes spec clear on intent without providing restricting guidance<br> <fantasai> s/more details/for details/<br> <dael> Rossen_: We have 2 more minutes on this. If we can't resolve we'll go back to GH<br> <dael> jensimmons: I can't shake feeling that it seems like 2 things being debated. One is should we include a lot of non-normative text and an attempt to have a lot of info in spec. That's A vs B.<br> <dael> jensimmons: Title of the issue and some comments feel more like if you agree we're putting in non-normative tex tyou also agree current text is what we end up with. Then we get stuck.<br> <fantasai> I don't have any objection to adding informative sections *with examples*. But Proposal A is written as specific guidance, which I don't agree with.<br> <Rossen_> q?<br> <fantasai> s/with examples/as examples/<br> <dael> jensimmons: What TabAtkins desc is threading the needle so it's not overly descriptive but not useless and underspec. If we're trying to call now to include text or not if we can unwind from demand about incredibly descriptive...we're getting stuck because being conflaited.<br> <dael> masonfreed: Let's go back tot he issue. Post says they're open for discussion and further details but first question is large direction of A or B.<br> <astearns> this could be part of the OpenUI joint meeting in a few weeks<br> <dael> Rossen_: sgtm. Don't want to resolve on A or B, just on thread.<br> <dael> Rossen_: Thank you masonfreed<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5480#issuecomment-701493808 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2020 16:15:30 UTC