W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: Minimum viable custom elements

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 23:25:48 -0800
Message-ID: <CAEV2_WbV2YM_3b7fJjeGuduE=60pL3spfrNueAnYeBoQuLC_2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>, Alice Boxhall <aboxhall@google.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
I'm tracking the state of requests for 'appearance' here:

https://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css4-ui#appearance

Feel free to directly edit that wiki page and add more concrete data /
research that you think will help make a decision in terms of design
etc.

For now, there is insufficient data to show anyhing of any reasonable
interop for this property, hence it is still postponed at best.

Thanks,

Tantek

tags: [css-ui] [css3-ui] [cssui]



On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:58 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 01/30/2015 07:54 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 30, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Alice Boxhall <aboxhall@google.com
>>> <mailto:aboxhall@google.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     The only way it overcomes that is by relying on a proprietary
>>>     extension called -webkit-appearance that is not standardized and does
>>>     not work reliably across browsers. Furthermore, it's not at all clear
>>>     to me why that example needs custom elements to begin with. If we
>>>     assume this proprietary extension exists, we can just do this:
>>>
>>>     http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?saved=3397
>
> [...]
>>>
>>> So, I naively ask, what's stopping us from standardising something like
>>> -webkit-appearance: none? I think that a bunch of
>>> the most common accessibility issues we see today come from people (quite
>>> justifiably) re-implementing standard HTML
>>> elements in order to get the styling they need - with or without using
>>> Custom Elements.
>
>
> -webkit-appearance: none isn't a proprietary extension, it's a prefixed
> version of something that was once in a standards-track document. It
> got removed because there were serious design problems with the original
> idea, but some values stuck around.
>
>> Indeed.  It would be really useful to solve this problem either with a CSS
>> property like -webkit-appearance or decorator.
>>   Perhaps Tantek or Fantasai could enlighten us.
>>
>> Relevant URLs:
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?type-index=www-style&index-type=t&keywords=appearance&search=Search
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Jul/0334.html
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Feb/0459.html
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Feb/0625.html
>
>
> I think you caught the important points right there.
>
> Tantek and Florian are actively working on updating the CSS3 UI
> draft right now, so this might come up at the CSSWG f2f in a
> couple weeks.
>
> ~fantasai
Received on Saturday, 31 January 2015 07:26:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:27:25 UTC