Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-highlight-api] invalidation of static ranges (#4597)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `Invalidation of Static Ranges`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Reference DOM's definition of invalidity for static ranges for highlight API`
* `RESOLVED: Republish highlight API`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;fantasai> Topic: Invalidation of Static Ranges<br>
&lt;fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4597<br>
&lt;fantasai> dandclark: Discussed structures for representing highlights<br>
&lt;fantasai> dandclark: author could choose live or static ranges, with different perf considerations each<br>
&lt;fantasai> dandclark: issue was originally open to discuss, given static ranges can become stale<br>
&lt;dandclark> https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#staticrange-valid<br>
&lt;fantasai> dandclark: what is an invalid static range that we should not try to paint?<br>
&lt;florian> q+<br>
&lt;fantasai> dandclark: Do we want to have highlight API spec point to these definitions in DOM spec, or do we want a different definition<br>
&lt;fantasai> dandclark: ...<br>
&lt;fantasai> dandclark: [reads criteria]<br>
&lt;fantasai> florian: I think it's likely a good idea to point to DOM<br>
&lt;fantasai> florian: reason this is new is that it's first time in the platform that the static range is created by user and passed to UA<br>
&lt;fantasai> florian: other uses the UA passes to user<br>
&lt;fantasai> florian: The criteria listed are reasonable, but ...<br>
&lt;fantasai> florian: but is sensitive to the length of the node<br>
&lt;Rossen_> ack florian<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: Should just follow DOM definition<br>
&lt;fantasai> fantasai: what about the length?<br>
&lt;Rossen_> ack fantasai<br>
&lt;fantasai> fantasai: what is the length of a node?<br>
&lt;fantasai> sanketj: for text it's number of characters<br>
&lt;cbiesinger> is that code points? code units?<br>
&lt;fantasai> florian: so if you have an offset bigger than length of node, one behavior is to treat whole thing as invalid<br>
&lt;fantasai> florian: other behavior that we had originally was to clamp to within the length<br>
&lt;fantasai> florian: going with DOM's definition seems reasonable<br>
&lt;fantasai> Rossen_: Any objections to using DOM's definition of invalid for static ranges?<br>
&lt;fantasai> RESOLVED: Reference DOM's definition of invalidity for static ranges for highlight API<br>
&lt;sanketj> @cbiesinger, yes, code units<br>
&lt;fantasai> fantasai: Do we need to republish?<br>
&lt;fantasai> fantasai: Last publication with 2020<br>
&lt;fantasai> RESOLVED: Republish highlight API<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4597#issuecomment-915381835 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2021 16:20:30 UTC