Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-ui] Support setting offscreen content inert (#10711)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-ui] Support setting offscreen content inert`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Accept Option 1 in flackr's latest comment`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;masonf> +1 thanks<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> flackr: we talked about this previously, there were some open questions and a arequest to talk to a11y folks<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> flackr: i've done both<br>
&lt;astearns> s/"this is what/"this is the *scope* of what/<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> flackr: certainly a controversial area, but i think a11y folks are largely in support of making it easier to match the expected a11y of these use-cases<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> flackr: and i've outline a way in which a property could explain the inert attribute, so we don't have complex interactions between the two<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> flackr: could we pursue the proposed option of adding a new property for this, and the UA stylesheet explaining inertness?<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10711#issuecomment-2378378364<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> flackr: Option 1, bikeshedding welcome<br>
&lt;emilio> q+<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> chrishtr: Is Scott's comment in line with this?<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> flackr: I believe so, yes, he has some additional comments about how/when you should be able to escape inertness.<br>
&lt;Rossen4> ack emilio<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> emilio: This also affects how browsers implement this<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> flackr: It mostly tracks how browsers implement, but the current proposal has the ability to escape<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> emilio: In Gecko, you can't  - we implemented &lt;dialog> stuff without the :has() (it doesn't work with shadow Dom)<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> emilio: we implement escaping the same way<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> emilio: the only reason authors can't escape inert now is because we don't expose the internal property that allows that<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> emilio: exposing it contradicts some of the discussions a while ago when this was being discussed. I'm personally okay with it, tho.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> emilio: part of the reasoning to not expose to CSS was a lack of use-cases, but it seems there are some<br>
&lt;chrishtr> q?<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> Rossen4: so back to the original proposal, Option 1.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> Rossen4: Objections?<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> emilio: to clarify, this is inherited?<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> flackr: yes<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> emilio: okay, instead of doing wonky pseudo-inheritance<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> RESOLVED: Accept Option 1 in flackr's latest comment<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10711#issuecomment-2379913684 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Friday, 27 September 2024 19:20:18 UTC