- From: Peter Linss via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 17:10:26 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I disagree with `:modal-active`. We got to `:modal` under the agreement that pseudo-classes should have one meaning, and `:modal-active` at least implies 'this is modal and it's active' (and makes `:modal:modal-active` stutter). I'd be ok with `:active-modal` (or possibly `:active(modal)` as a pattern for different flavors of 'activeness') or, better, some synonym of `:active` that we can use in all cases in the way that `:active` was originally meant to be used. But I'd rather we take some time and see if we can't reclaim `:active` under its original meaning. The fact that `:active` has bad interop makes me hopeful we can tighten it's definition. (If we can't reclaim `:active`, I propose we add it to our list of mistakes.) Another possibility would be to make `:active` care about other pseudo-classes on the same selector, e.g. `dialog:active` means the mouse is down, but `dialog:modal:active` (or `dialog:active:modal`) means the active modal. (I think this is likely somewhat problematic but wanted to throw it out there.) -- GitHub Notification of comment by plinss Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7258#issuecomment-1130270663 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2022 17:10:28 UTC