Re: [css-ui] Agenda request: Revive directional focus navigation properties

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:36:18 +0200, Tantek Çelik <>  
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Leif Arne Storset <>  
> wrote:
>> Opera wants to revive CSS3 Basic User Interface's directional focus
>> navigation properties: nav-up, nav-down, nav-right, nav-left [0]. I'd  
>> like
>> to get a resolution for that on Wednesday's telcon.
> Glad to hear that Opera is willing to put time and effort into
> advancing directional nav.
> However, I don't know of any new information that merits any new
> discussion of this topic.
> See below for details/questions.
>> Reasons: there are several implementations (Presto-based Opera and
>> WebKit-based Samsung and LG browsers), they are in active use,
> Are any of these downloadable / testable on the open web?
> URLs to simulator downloads etc.?

Our simulator are freely available

Opera have had support for it in presto for quite some time, just try the  
test below with any 12.x (use shift+arrows)

Finally there are plenty of TVs in the shops in europe that support it.

>> and HbbTV
>> specifications depend on them.
> Specification dependency is insufficient to exit CR, and thus
> insufficient to keep a feature.

for the record, this spec is also implemented by thousands of TVs of all  
major brands, so is not only on paper.

>> The WG originally dropped them on 17 April
>> together with nav-index, but nav-index has problems that nav-up,  
>> nav-down,
>> nav-right and nav-left do not have. So I think we had a "baby and  
>> bathwater"
>> moment. :)
> Some different problems, some similar.
> E.g. do you have nav-* tests you'd like to contribute?
> If not, writing/contributing such tests would be one way Opera can
> help "revive" the nav-* properties.

We do have some TCs that we may potentially share (they need to be changed  
to make them suitable for publication)

>> (I should have brought this up before, mea culpa, but since the edits
>> haven't been made yet and LC hasn't happened, I reckon it shouldn't  
>> delay
>> anything to change this now.)
> They're still "at risk", and the lack of publicly usable/downloadable
> implementations / tests (for the many years that the spec was in CR)
> has made it clear they're not CR-exit-worthy.

I think this is the controversial bit.
Can you explain to me (not familiar with the CSS WG) what does constitute  
a valid implementation according to the exit criteria?

It should be clear by now, as pointed out few times [1][2][3], that there  
are implementations. On the other end, if the only valid implementations  
are desktop (and possibly mobile?) browsers that can be installed directly  
by the end user on major OSes, and if the only valid apps are those  
available on the web for free, that change things a bit.

In particular, can you clarify if usage such as in TV services, ebooks or  
automotive would not be considered now (or in future) valid  
implementations, assuming there is a not too complicated way to test them?

If so, what is the suggested way forward to handle these cases? Maybe  
create market specific "extensions" for features that WGs are not prepared  
to accept / desktop browsers to implement?



Giuseppe Pascale
Product Manager TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software

Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 07:12:00 UTC