Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Early design review of modal close signals/ModalCloseWatcher (#594)

Hi TAG! I did another pass on this proposal to address some feedback folks have given so far:

- I renamed from `ModalCloseWatcher` to `CloseWatcher` since I don't want to canonicalize the term "modal" here. There's a lot of current thinking going on about how to name the various dialog/popup/toast/picker/menu/modal/etc. patterns in Open UI and it seems better to just be generic.

- In response to @annevk's feedback, I elevated the unification of existing platform close signals to a top-level goal. I agree we should work on such unification as part of this work. (I know @annevk proposed doing so ahead of time, but I don't know if there'd be appetite for doing so if it's not driven by the prospect of actually fulfilling the expressed web developer need.)

- I unified with `<dialog>` further. In particular this meant renaming `beforeclose` to `cancel` and talking more about how to reconcile with `<dialog>`'s existing behaviors.

- After some discussion with web developers we decided that this is worth pursuing alongside, and integrated with, the `<popup>` proposal. So the idea of just doing `<popup>`, and not doing `CloseWatcher`, makes less sense to us now.

I'd love to get your further thoughts on the revised proposal! One particular API issue that would benefit from TAG feedback is https://github.com/slightlyoff/history_api/issues/34.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/594#issuecomment-816927320