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

Re: [selector-profiles] confusion

From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:29:14 -0700
To: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE045257.79D8%galineau@adobe.com>


On 7/11/13 12:07 PM, "François REMY" <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote:

>> Dude, I got all that. I am asking for the specific use-cases that
>>suggest
>> that, yes, authors might indeed end up calling qSA on load so regularly
>>it
>> ought to be baked in. Having 'a' use-case or 'some' use-cases is very
>> different from 'yes, this sounds like something I'd want to do
>>regularly'.
>
>Actually, you may want to ask Lea for examples. I was dubious about that
>as well previously, particularly on the subject selector thing, but she
>did send me some pretty good use-cases over time. Sadly, that was mostly
>Twitter discussions so I don't have them handy right now.
>
>The one I could think of however is:
>
>   !label /for/ input:focus {
>      ... focus style for the labels of the focused input ...
>   }
>
>This is only working on the complete profile right now for multiple
>reasons but authors can accept that the styling of the label may be a bit
>delayed after the focus change, that's not a big deal.

If you'll pardon my French - so to speak - use-cases are the shit. In this
case, whether authors 'can' accept a delay seems rather hugely dependent
on what 'a bit' is. To go to an extreme for argument sake, if the delay
nearly a second and makes transitions or other animations look bad I'm
doubtful. More fleshed out ideas or mock-ups would definitely help in
figuring out whether and how any specific proposal might help.

>
>
>
>
>>>My proposal copes with all traditional stylesheets needs that can
>>>accomodate slight FOUC {for example highlighting an element based on its
>>>content as the user is typing for example...}
>>
>> Whoa. 'traditional stylesheets that can accommodate slight FOUC' could
>> well be the weirdest, most subjective, undefinable thing I've ever read
>>on
>> this list. Respect…:)
>
>That's because it's indeed an undefinable concept. Depending on context,
>an author may decide that some rules are not worth being kept up-to-date
>at every frame because this is costly and the delay that may result from
>not keeping them up-to-date does not affect the user experience in a
>critical way. So, yes, that's totally subjective. It depends on the use
>case, on the author vision, on the expected performance of the user's
>devices, and on the users expectations. But the author opting-out of
>full-time rule rematching has control and/or insight over those
>parameters. 		 	   		

OK, I was probably snarlier than I should have been, though I remained
amazed by the way you managed to find the 7 words that'd be most likely to
scare implementors :) More seriously, your argument implies the author can
easily figure out which rules are not worth keeping up to date. Given the
wide range of devices and contexts the content may be run in, this sounds
very dicey. People have a hard enough time building responsive designs;
expecting them to also, somehow, factor in which selectors will perform
well where ahead of time sounds like a stretch.


Received on Thursday, 11 July 2013 19:29:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:32 UTC