W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2013

Re: [css-colors] Specify the System Colors colors

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:48:37 -0700
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
CC: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DCAFCC43-E9FD-49BF-93A2-939B1973238A@adobe.com>
So according to the tests from Simon, all browsers support some kind of color sets that are not interoperable at all. There is just one exception with Android and iOS and we don't know if that changes with one of the next versions.

Do UAs not see any privacy concerns? If so, why does the view between the WG and the UAs differ? Are the color profiles actively used as spoofing mechanism? And what does the attacker get for relevant information from the color settings (even if they would be OS theme dependent)?

When David says Firefox can probably not follow the spec wording, then the idea of default colors (and the potential privacy threat) can not be addressed at all.


On Aug 30, 2013, at 5:11 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:

> On Friday 2013-08-30 12:35 +0200, Simon Pieters wrote:
>> [[
>> User agents must support these keywords, but should map them to
>> "default" values, not based on the user's OS settings (for example,
>> mapping all the "background" colors to white and "foreground" colors
>> to black).
>> ]]
>> -- http://tabatkins.github.io/specs/css-color/Overview.html#system-colors

> I tend to think this "should" isn't a good idea.
> For a start, the system colors are still needed along with
> 'appearance', given the way appearance is actually (interoperably, I
> think) implemented.  (Was the disagreement between the
> likely-interoperable implementations and the spec part of why it got
> dropped from css-ui, post CR?)
> I don't think Gecko would be able to honor this should, both because
> we need the correct values in our UA style sheets and because we
> need them in our UI.
> (That said, Gecko also has a number of longstanding prefixed
> extensions to address issues such as those raised in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Aug/0027.html

> The working group removed these additions from the spec, I believe
> because it wanted to deprecate the entire set.)
>> Using just black and white seems unnecessarily boring. It's also not
>> so clear which ones are backgrounds and which are foregrounds.
> There's a clear separation between foregrounds, backgrounds, and
> borders.
> -David
> -- 
> 𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
> 𝄢   Mozilla                          https://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
>             Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
>             What I was walling in or walling out,
>             And to whom I was like to give offense.
>               - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)

Received on Friday, 30 August 2013 19:49:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:33 UTC