Re: [w3c/manifest] Add `color_scheme_dark` member and themeable members (colors only) (PR #1207)

marcoscaceres left a comment (w3c/manifest#1207)

Hi @christianliebel and @dmurph — I've pushed a few commits on top of yours addressing the review comments. Here's a summary of what changed:

**Spec design changes:**

- `themeable member` is now defined by enumeration (`theme_color` and `background_color` in a `<ul>`) rather than the circular "is a manifest member that can be themed". The `<ul>` makes it easy to add new themeable members in the future.
- The processing algorithm now loops over the fixed set of themeable members (`« "theme_color", "background_color" »`) rather than hardcoding two separate steps. This addresses both @dmurph's suggestion and the prose/algorithm inconsistency @Copilot flagged.
- The "is a themeable member" classification is now inlined into the `theme_color` and `background_color` member definitions rather than sitting in standalone paragraphs.
- Added normative applying text: when the OS uses a dark color theme, the user agent SHOULD use the `color_scheme_dark` values in place of the base themeable member values, unless user preferences (e.g. accessibility settings) take precedence. This also covers the dark-only case implicitly — if a base member is absent, the dark override is still used in dark mode.
- Replaced "dark mode" throughout with "dark color theme" / "operating system's color theme preference", consistent with how CSS MQ Level 5 describes `prefers-color-scheme`.
- Removed the historical justification note — the design stands on its own.

**xref/markup fixes:**

- `themeable member` dfn scoped to `manifest/` with `data-dfn-for="manifest"`; all link sites updated to `[=manifest/themeable member=]`
- Removed undefined "theme overrides" term from prose

**On @dmurph's `*_localized` suggestion:** the loop-over-fixed-set approach achieves the same goal (no hardcoding, generic application) without restructuring the algorithm more radically. Happy to discuss if you had something different in mind.

Let me know if anything looks off.


-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/manifest/pull/1207#issuecomment-4195811132
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3c/manifest/pull/1207/c4195811132@github.com>