W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > July 2021

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-highlight-api] Specifying behavior for Highlights involving multiple documents (#6417)

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 16:19:09 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-884317940-1626884347-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The CSS Working Group just discussed `Multiple Document Highlights`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: highlights associated with creator document. Throw on mismatches when registering ranges/etc.`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;fantasai> Topic: Multiple Document Highlights<br>
&lt;fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6417<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: Issue is Highlight API doesn't cases where multiple highlight trees and multiple documents interact<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: e.g. in same-origin iframes, ranges can be passed back and forth<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: Should we be allowed to have highlight covering ranges in different windows?<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: Can a single highlight cross documents?<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: Could reject these cases by throwing<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: I would propose something different<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: I have a 3-part proposal<br>
&lt;GameMaker> Dan Clark is talking, not sanketj<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: 1st, should allow highlight to contain ranges from multiple trees<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: 2nd, allow highlight to be added to multiple registries<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: might mean tracking multiple highlight registries for each highlight<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: When a highlight registry painting, will only paint highlights associated with that document<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> s/sanketj/dandclark/g<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: If it finds a range in another window/iframe, it does not reach over there and paint there. Only paints within its own document<br>
&lt;Rossen_> q?<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: Wanted to get people's thoughts on this proposal<br>
&lt;smfr> q+<br>
&lt;fantasai> smfr: proposal seems to be the most complex version of the solution, allowing highlights to involve multiple documents and allowing them to live in multiple registries<br>
&lt;sanketj> q+<br>
&lt;fantasai> smfr: What's the reason to avoid the simpler solution, of restricting to single document and single registry<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: Philosophical whether to reject early or to be more permissive<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: If I create a highlight but don't give it any ranges, is it associated with that document?<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: ...<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: Do I need to do comparison whether new ranges in another document?<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: Some interesting cases there I don't know how to work through<br>
&lt;emilio> q+<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: We could say something like highlight is associated with document that created it<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: and registry associated with that document<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: and if try to insert range from another document, throws<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai, stop associating all this with sanketj, it's dandclark<br>
&lt;fantasai> smfr: That would be my preference for the first version<br>
&lt;Rossen_> ack smfr<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> s/sanketj/dandclark/g<br>
&lt;Rossen_> ack sanketj<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: Seems fine, pref for first version<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: Need to define which exception to throw<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: different documents, multiple registries, and multiple ranges to single highlight, need to define exception for each of those<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: might be simpler to allow those cases and don't paint the ranges in different document<br>
&lt;emilio> (sorry, no mic) Strongly prefer associating it with the creator document and throwing on mismatches. There's precedent for this w/ constructable sheets, FontFace, etc<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/first version/first version. If necessary could add these abilities later./<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> Agree with emilio - we already have a decent precedent to only allow same-document usage.<br>
&lt;fantasai> Rossen_: Any other comments/feedback?<br>
&lt;GameMaker> I also agree et. all with throwing<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: If we are throwing, do we want just one exception or separate exceptions for each case? Seem like slightly different operations<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: I think they all boil down to same category<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: using something in a wrong context<br>
&lt;fantasai> Rossen_: if this proposed path forward works for you, suggest go back to GH and work out the details in terms of exceptions<br>
&lt;fantasai> Rossen_: once all happy, come back and we can resolve<br>
&lt;fantasai> Rossen_: unless you feel strongly on resolving this path forward now<br>
&lt;fantasai> dandclark: Sounds good, thanks<br>
&lt;fantasai> Rossen_: proposal is that we associate with creator document and throw on mismatches<br>
&lt;sanketj> SGTM<br>
&lt;fantasai> Rossen_: any objections?<br>
&lt;dandclark> +1 to resolution<br>
&lt;fantasai> RESOLVED: highlights associated with creator document. Throw on mismatches when registering ranges/etc.<br>
&lt;Rossen_> q<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6417#issuecomment-884317940 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 21 July 2021 16:19:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:39 UTC