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

Re: Styling HTML placeholder attribute

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:53:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDp6P=X9Ym6ZnScEpihidvRHsjN5bj9S0S4=Ypi8KhqCw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>, Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "Lea Verou (leaverou@gmail.com)" <leaverou@gmail.com>
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Sylvain Galineau
<sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
> [Tab Atkins Jr.:]
>> I'm arguing against Arron and Sylvain's assertions that we should decide,
>> from a theoretical perspective, whether to address placeholder styling
>> with a pseudoclass or pseudo-element, and then after making that decision,
>> decide on the styling.
> This a straw man. This whole part of the discussion started with your claim
> that a pseudo-element is 'definitely better' as opacity would otherwise
> be awkward as a default style. We don't believe this is a sufficient reason
> to require all browsers to add a pseudo-element, never mind requiring authors to
> deal with one. Especially when it doesn't address other interesting scenarios
> and user requests.

Arron's argument was in fact precisely what I said, and thus I wasn't
presenting a strawman.  Your arguments seemed similar, but I'll accept
it you wish to assert that they weren't.  My arguments were in a
different line entirely, related to author/user usefulness.  I zeroed
in on a particular solution too early and missed out on some good
possibilities, but that's why we have review and discussion.
Everybody wins, yay!

> We also believe that if opacity requires extra pseudo-elements to work right
> then *maybe* opacity has a problem that needs fixing. Is that 'theoretical'?
> Really?
> There is nothing 'theoretical' about any of this. I have spent an entire
> release working on control styling and the feedback thereof. Believe me,
> it's quite real. And that experience motivates a strong desire to think
> about the use-case from a more general perspective  than 'Opacity!
> Opacity! But what about opacity? We must have opacity!'. But somehow,
> the latter is the approach focused on users' concerns and the former
> is 'architecture astronautics'.

Anything that motivates someone to say, roughly, "Let's not worry
about how it'll actually be styled; it's more important to figure out
what type of selector to use for it first" is rightly vilified. ^_^

> Clearly, this won't get anywhere. Oh well.

You may have noticed that this is a meta-argument for our own
amusement, and that the actual discussion is productive enough
(there's a wiki page! People seem to be reasonably happy with option 5
so far!).

Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 20:54:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:23 UTC