Re: [RC4] active-selector-002

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 1:15 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>> On 12/28/2010 03:39 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> If implementers agree that this is the behavior they want
>> and the HTML spec gets updated accordingly, I'm happy to
>> update your test to match. :) But I think the discussion
>> of whether that should happen is out-of-scope for this
>> particular mailing list, and probably belongs on www-style
>> and/or an appropriate HTML5 mailing list.
>
> Agreed.  Thread at
> <http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-December/029530.html>
> explains current browser behavior, and requests a change to the HTML
> spec.

Regardless of the outcome of the thread I started, the test in
question is currently failed by all browsers, and will continue to
fail in all browsers unless/until at least two of them decide that
their current behavior is broken and change it to match fantasai's
desired outcome.

We may want to change the test to remove this independence.  I think
it's valuable to test that ancestors of the activated element are
:active (IE doesn't do this currently, and it's a pretty annoying
behavior), so we should maybe put a <button> inside an <a> instead, or
something similar.

~TJ

Received on Tuesday, 28 December 2010 22:49:08 UTC