- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:53:53 -0800
- 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!). ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 20:54:45 UTC