- From: Qebui Nehebkau <qebui.nehebkau+whatwg@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 02:37:23 +0000
- To: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, TJ VanToll <tj.vantoll@gmail.com>
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net> wrote:
> Maybe instead of coming up with one set of pseudo-elements that's limited to
> the lowest common denominator we should have multiple completely different
> sets of pseudo-elements for each kind of interface?
>
> input::calendar.month-view-grid ::first-week-row {...} // typical desktop
> style
>
> input::calendar.spin-wheel ::month-spinner {...} // iOS style
>
> (or any other syntax with cats/hats/dogs/pseudo-functions, as long as it
> groups pseudo-elements per kind of calendar UI)
>
> This way developers assuming date pickers are grids with a month view could
> style specific pseudo-elements for this layout and mobile browsers could
> ignore these styles completely.
And what happens when another implementation comes up with a
completely new interface? Do you want to specify every possible
representation of a date selector? Even if you *intend* only to
specify the (current) most common arrangements, leaving everything
else to its own devices, eventually some author will whine about not
being able to make some implementation fit their precious
meticulously-crafted "brand", and it gets all the worse if the
unspecified interfaces *catch on*. The only real solution to this
problem is for authors to accept that they don't have complete control
of the way users view their pages, and that browsers have the freedom
to innovate and develop new interfaces and other features for a
*reason*: to better serve the potentially infinite and contradictory
desires of different users.
Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 02:38:10 UTC