- From: Greg Whitworth via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 01:55:14 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@zcorpan I had not considered that given that `appearance: base` takes the step of requiring a defined DOM and styles. You're correct at the definition that the behavior should remain but without that required DOM & styles we don't take a step towards the goal of this which is to enable styling of the built-in control/component without having to replace it. I don't have a strong opinion regarding the switch that enables that DOM & styles, @frivoal recommended over on the explainer repo a `base` attribute on the control/component that would likewise enable this and would also not conflate `appearance` which some people think will lead to author confusion. You both have more history investigating the `appearance` property so I'll happily take guidance to ensure that the following goals are met: 1. Requires defined DOM & styles to enable an author to style the control/component 2. Doesn't introduce author confusion 3. Allows user agents & the CSSWG to incrementally enhance more controls & components without compat concerns @fantasai brought up that very issue with the current proposal of `appearance: base` as authors may apply it to many controls and thus hindering our future additions. @tabatkins recommended a `appearance: base-checkbox` style approach to the problem and as noted @frivoal recommended a similar approach but with a HTML attribute. cc: @tantek as he had opinions on this aspect as well Also: Thank you all so much for the thoughtful engagement and help on this -- GitHub Notification of comment by gregwhitworth Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5998#issuecomment-779532211 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 16 February 2021 01:55:15 UTC