Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-ui] The interactivity property should not be included in the all shorthand (#12049)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-ui] The interactivity property should not be included in the all shorthand`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: add !important to UA stylesheet rule for the inert attribute`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;kbabbitt> masonf: just read it over and added a comment, question is about whether `interactivity` should be included in `all`<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... there was breakage in chrome related to inert attribute being reset by `all:initial`<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... best fix seems to be making that UA stylesheet rule !important<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... and putting interactivity back into all<br>
&lt;flackr> q+<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... should fix bug and keep important behaviors<br>
&lt;Rossen4> ack ntim<br>
&lt;ntim> ack ntim<br>
&lt;Rossen4> ack flackr<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> flackr: we used to allow un-inerting subtrees that were interactivity inert<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... which is I think why this was problematic<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... but now that we don't is the problem that it's on same element?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> masonf: yes that's the problem<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... afaict the only problematic case is when inert attribute is on an element and on same element you do all:initial<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... you probably want inert attribute to win<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... I think adding !important does exactly that<br>
&lt;lwarlow> q+<br>
&lt;flackr> sounds reasonable<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> lwarlow: just to double check does this have any impact on modal dialogs?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... that was the other case where interactivity came up<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... wasn't clear to me what solution was<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> masonf: 2 ways it can impact modal dialogs<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... direct way should not be affected, modals should stay uninerted with rest of page inerted regardless of all property<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... reason UA stylesheet has a modal rule that sets interactivity auto, corner case<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... it will automatically have that behavior but if author wants to make entire page inert, they have to contend with CSS rules about setting [missed]<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... other than that corner case, modal dialog inertness should just work<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> lwarlow: makes sense<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> masonf: and there's a way around it if they want to do that weird thing<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> masonf: everything I've said is my speculation about behaviors, if we go this route we will probably want to test it out<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> Rossen4: have you?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> masonf: no<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> Rossen4: any other feedback or suggestions?<br>
&lt;lwarlow> +1<br>
&lt;flackr> +1<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> masonf: Proposal is to add !important to UA stylesheet rule for the inert attribute<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> Rossen4: objections?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> RESOLVED: add !important to UA stylesheet rule for the inert attribute<br>
&lt;dbaron> +1<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12049#issuecomment-3303716541 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2025 16:18:26 UTC