- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2022 16:15:42 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[cssom-view] Rename Element.isVisible to Element.isHidden?`. <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <fantasai> Topic: [cssom-view] Rename Element.isVisible to Element.isHidden?<br> <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7317<br> <fantasai> chrishtr: Bringing up naming of isVisible/isHidden<br> <fantasai> chrishtr: Last week we resolved to change to isHidden<br> <fantasai> chrishtr: but also spun up some Twitter polls<br> <fantasai> chrishtr: Tab's poll indicated isVisible got more votes<br> <fantasai> chrishtr: Jen's poll seemed inconclusive?<br> <jarhar> https://twitter.com/jensimmons/status/1532137408418004994<br> <vmpstr> https://twitter.com/tabatkins/status/1532138513704943617<br> <fantasai> chrishtr: Also original reasons for isVisible<br> <fantasai> chrishtr: basically, doesn't guarantee it's visible<br> <fantasai> chrishtr: There's some conflicts with isVisible idea from IntersectionObserver<br> <fantasai> chrishtr: And conflicts with element.hidden<br> <fantasai> chrishtr: So that's the rundown<br> <fantasai> chrishtr: There's data both ways, so maybe leave the way it is?<br> <emilio> q+<br> <emilio> fantasai: there's also a comment suggesting checkVisibility<br> <emilio> ... maybe that would be possible?<br> <emilio> fantasai: I think the mixups between isVisible/isHidden in the twitter poll make me think we need to do a bit better<br> <fantasai> fantasai: and in the issue<br> <Rossen_> ack fantasai<br> <Rossen_> ack emilio<br> <fantasai> emilio: Was going to say something along the same lines<br> <fantasai> emilio: make it less confusing<br> <fantasai> emilio: I'm not sure I'm satisfied with either isVisible or isHidden<br> <fantasai> emilio: checkVisibility sounds reasonable<br> <chrishtr> checkVisibility is fine with me too<br> <smfr> not a fan of “check”<br> <fantasai> fantasai: checkVisibility with args and defaulting to a set of argus would maybe be less confusing<br> <fantasai> fantasai: you're checking for these specific things, not for total visibility<br> <emilio> computeVisibility?<br> <fantasai> Rossen_: Maybe investigate longer? Is there any pressure for this?<br> <fantasai> chrishtr: We'd like to implement in Chromium, so hoping we can come to an agreement<br> <fantasai> Rossen_: We have a name for now<br> <fantasai> Rossen_: I would say let's continue working in the thread, bikeshedding on the call not so helpful unless something comes up that's obvious<br> <fantasai> Rossen_: and don't have anything better atm<br> <fantasai> Rossen_: sounds like you're going to start writing code, changing name should be fairly straightforward<br> <fantasai> chrishtr: Have code written, want to ship it<br> <Rossen_> q?<br> <fantasai> chrishtr: Don't want to ship something the group disagrees with<br> <fantasai> fantasai: It's not so much about group disagreeing, it's about getting something we're confident that authors will find usable<br> <fantasai> fantasai: and the current information we have indicates that we maybe don't have that yet<br> <fantasai> fantasai: so I think we should work on it a bit more, so that when we ship, it's something authors find natural and easy to use<br> <fantasai> Rossen_: Should we continue to discuss here or take it back to the issue?<br> <emilio> Rossen_: is there anything we can do here right now or should we continue discussing in the issue?<br> <fantasai> Rossen_: Suggest engaging on the issue<br> <fantasai> Rossen_: Let's collect ideas and organize them and take the winner<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7317#issuecomment-1150123208 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2022 16:15:43 UTC