- From: Bjartur Thorlacius <svartman95@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 16:20:41 +0000
On 4/4/11, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela at cs.tut.fi> wrote: > Lachlan Hunt wrote: > >> Yes, it should be implemented equivalent to display:none. > > Please clarify. You seem to by trying to express it very briefly, at the > cost of change of meaning. You don't really mean that the entire <details> > element should not be displayed at all, do you? Just that only the <summary> > element is displayed, the rest of <details> content being kept away, right? > > I think the assumed typical implementation of <details> rendering is > described in some detail (no pun intended) at > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/rendering.html#the-details-element-0 > Perhaps it is even too detailed to some extent. Personally I don't like the > idea of defaults like 40px padding, in an environment where the pixel size > and font size should be assumed to be unknown. (I can understand why some > measures are given in pixels, following the bad tradition of browsers and > "sample" stylesheets, to prevent old documents from breaking apart, but for > new elements, we could use the em unit, couldn't we?) And it's not quite > clear what it means... but it makes it clear that only the implied "second > container" is supposed to be removed from the rendering. > IMO, the specification of the <details> element is overly focused on expected renderings. Rather than explicitly defining the semantics of <details> with or without an @open attribute, and with or without a <summary> child, sane renderings for medium to large displays whith whom the user can interact are described, and usage is to be inferred therefrom. This is suboptimal, as it allows hiding <details open>s on small output windows but shoulds against it as strongly as ignoring addition of the open attribute. Note that the <details> element represents a disclosure widget, but the contents are nowhere defined (neither as additional information (that a user-agent may or may not render, depending on factors such as scarcity of screen estate), nor as spoiling information that shouldn't be provided to the user without explicit consent). I regard the two different use cases as different, even though vendors might implement both with { binding: details; } on some media. <Details> can't serve both. It's often spoken of as if intended for something else than the YouTube video description use case. <Details> mustn't be used for hiding spoilers, or else browsers won't be able to intelligently choose to render the would-be concealed contents.
Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 09:20:41 UTC