- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:32:55 -0800
- To: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "Lea Verou (leaverou@gmail.com)" <leaverou@gmail.com>
Deliberately hyper-snipping, because you already agree with me on the desired solution anyway. ^_^ On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com> wrote: > But again this is not the real topic of this discussion the topic is what > is 'placeholder'? Not what can we set on the 'placeholder'. These are > two separate issues that should be addressed separately. No, and Sylvain's similar assertion is similarly wrong. Arguments from theoretical purity are interesting and all, but that's the lowest level in the hierarchy of constituents. The most important thing is to figure out what kind of styling would produce the desired effect for placeholder text, and then we reason backwards from there to figure out what kind of properties and/or selectors we need to achieve that effect in the best manner. Trying to do it in reverse is architecture astronautics, and often has bad results, as it is explicitly trying to reach a decision without reasoning about author/user/etc concerns. Going from the proper way to deciding these things, it's reasonable to assert that partially-transparent text is a pretty good way to achieve the effect we want (text that always looks like a "washed-out" version of normal text). We can then reason backwards from there and figure out what solution is best, based on how well it implement that styling and what additional kinds of problems the solution can incidentally solve. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 18:33:41 UTC