- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 20:39:14 +0000 (UTC)
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, css21testsuite@gtalbot.org, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010, fantasai wrote: > On 12/28/2010 01:25 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > > > (I don't accept your conclusion in that thread, though - by common > > agreement between all browsers, clicking is an activation behavior, > > and all elements respond to clicks by becoming :active. This isn't a > > matter of bugwards compat or not, it's just a matter of your personal > > opinion differing from the interoperable opinion of all browsers. We > > should indeed be testing and requiring this behavior. If you believe > > we need a disclaimer about the it, so be it, but that shouldn't > > prevent us from testing interoperable behavior.) > > Sorry, but this is not a matter of my personal opinion. The HTML4 spec > gives no support to the idea of <span> being activateable, while it does > so for links and form elements; and the HTML5 spec explicitly excludes > it from its list of activateable elements. Given both these facts and > the current text of the CSS spec, there is absolutely no reason why the > CSS test suite should expect <span> to be activateable. We can change the HTML spec, that's not a problem. The only question here is what the UAs are going to implement. If interop is on having everything be activatable, I'm happy to update the spec. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 28 December 2010 20:39:42 UTC