- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 19:59:45 -0400
On 5/2/11 7:26 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > That makes sense, though I think it'd be better for that to be a style > scoped to the binding that defines the<select>, personally. OK, but more on this below. >> I would clearly prefer that the behavior be defined in terms of CSS; UAs >> that under the hood want to ignore the styles and just do something >> magic can still do that, of course. > > The behaviour is defined in terms of CSS and a hypothetical binding > language similar to XBL; in theory that should be sufficient for your > needs, no? I don't think so; we need to define at least some details of the binding. That's what I meant by sites depending on the details. For example, width calculations for <select> need to work in a particular way (or rather small range of ways).... > If not, I guess we have to work out what we can get browser vendors to > converge on. I am concerned that this might not end up being exactly what > you need, though, which would be of no more help to you than the status > quo, but with more complicated rules. That's entirely possible, yes. At the moment we're getting bug reports because people write their HTML+CSS, test in only WebKit or only IE, and then it breaks in Gecko. I would assume that there are others who only test in Gecko and then it breaks in other browsers.... -Boris
Received on Monday, 2 May 2011 16:59:45 UTC