- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2026 16:55:33 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-forms-1] Have 2 slider-fill pseudos? (upper vs lower slider fills)`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: two pseudos called slider-fill-over and slider-fill-under` * `RESOLVED: keep slider fill as an alias for slider fill under` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <ntim> q-<br> <jarhar> ntim: in anna tudor's original anlysis of input type range, she talked about having pseudos for upper and lower part would be helpful<br> <jarhar> ntim: right now we only have lower part<br> <jarhar> ntim: adding those those two is probably not controversial. the harder part is the naming<br> <jarhar> lwarlow: do any of the existing browsers have this?<br> <jarhar> ntim: edgehtml had this<br> <masonf> q+<br> <jarhar> ntim: thats the only engine that had this<br> <jarhar> lwarlow: what did they call them?<br> <jarhar> ntim: i have to check<br> <astearns> ack masonf<br> <jarhar> masonf: there is a multirange proposal, particuarly when picking names, upper and lower are not compatible with multi range<br> <jarhar> masonf: slider segment, you can have more than two of them<br> <jarhar> masonf: or at least think forward<br> <jarhar> astearns: could use first and last for the two version case<br> <jarhar> masonf: yeah, that would work<br> <jarhar> fantasai: in any case theres always a value and youre under that value or or over that value<br> <jarhar> fantasai: i think thats why going with over and under makes sense<br> <masonf> q+<br> <jarhar> masonf: i was going to say above and below, amenable to multiple ranges<br> <astearns> ack masonf<br> <jarhar> lwarlow: i think we agree that having two for this seems good, unlocks use cases and not more complicated implementation wise<br> <jarhar> lwarlow: i guess we can resolve on having two slider fills<br> <jarhar> lwarlow: maybe we can go with over and under as what we go with for now<br> <jarhar> lwarlow: helps to have these placeholder names so we can work on that basis<br> <jarhar> lwarlow: seem ok with everyone?<br> <jarhar> proposed resolution: two pseudos called slider-fill-over and slider-fill-under<br> <masonf> +q<br> <masonf> +1<br> <lwarlow> +1<br> <jarhar> RESOLVED: two pseudos called slider-fill-over and slider-fill-under<br> <jarhar> follow up question on this one though. i think this makes sense for ranges<br> <jarhar> fantasai: for switch control its a bit less clear<br> <dbaron> s/follow/fantasai: follow/<br> <jarhar> fantasai: im wondering if we want to keep slider fill as is or should slider fill be an alias for under<br> <jarhar> fantasai: i think keeping slider fill for all of the non range sliders makes sense<br> <jarhar> fantasai: maybe for progress it makes sense to be under and over<br> <jarhar> lwarlow: for switch it makes sense to just have slider fill<br> <jarhar> fantasai: im not sure what makes sense, should we just have all of them for all of them<br> <masonf> q+<br> <jarhar> lwarlow: it might unlock some funky switch design to have this<br> <jarhar> ntim: i think for the switch we probably want both<br> <jarhar> ntim: lets say you want to add the shape indicator<br> <jarhar> masonf: all the range-like things should have similar parts, and i like elika's idea to have an alias<br> <jarhar> fantasai: proposal is keep slider fill as an alias for slider fill under<br> <lwarlow> +1<br> <masonf> +1<br> <jarhar> fantasai: all apply to all slider controls<br> <jarhar> proposed resolution: keep slider fill as an alias for slider fill under<br> <jarhar> RESOLVED: keep slider fill as an alias for slider fill under<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12419#issuecomment-3928512325 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2026 16:55:33 UTC