- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 19:55:47 -0700
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > The key to allowing flexible styling of controls with multiple moving parts, > or "compound" controls, is defining pseudo-elements for the independent > pieces of the control. In addition, controls with distinct states also need > pseudo-classes. > > For <progress>, the way we would likely approach it is to have a > pseudo-class for the indeterminate state, and a psuedo-element for the > currently filled portion. Our <progress> implementation is still a work in > progress, so it doesn't allow quite that level of flexible styling yet. For what it's worth, this is the approach I have envisioned too. If the CSS WG doesn't step up to define these pseudo elements and pseudo classes we at mozilla would use -moz- prefixed ones for now. > The CSS WG has traditionally shied away from specifying how CSS properties > apply to form controls. I think it may be time to revisit that decision. > Custom styling of form controls is an important feature, and we will deliver > a real benefit to authors if it works in a consistent way across browsers. Would love to see this happen. I suspect once browsers have experimented with this a bit it shouldn't be too controversial how exactly this should be done. I know work has already started to define this for the @placeholder attribute introduced by HTML5 and already implemented by webkit and gecko. / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 02:56:41 UTC