Re: Dropping nav-* properties?

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 06:52:38 +0100, Masahito Kawamori  
<> wrote:

> Giuseppe
> I suspect there may be some confusion about the semantics of nav-*  
> properties.  Do you think we can clarify this and >talk with the  
> accessibility people, where there is some objections to the use of  
> nav-index.

As mentioned below, I do not have problems with the spec dropping  
tab-index. My question is about the other nav-* properties. Their semantic  
seems pretty straightforward, at least in the form commonly used. So if  
there isn't any issue with those, they should be kept in IMO.


> What do you think?
> Cheers
> Kawamori
> On Tuesday, June 11, 2013, Giuseppe Pascale <> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> while my request below for feedback and clarification went unanswered,  
>> I see that the group went ahead and decided >to drop the nav-*  
>> properties [1].
>> AFAIK all the issues mentioned in the various threads are about  
>> nav-index. But as result all nav-* properties were >dropped. Can you  
>> help me understand why? Are there any issues specific of the  
>> nav-up/down/left/right? If so, could you >point me to that?
>> As mentioned before, the nav-up/down/left/right (but NOT nav-index)  
>> properties are currently actively used in the TV >space, and referenced  
>> by public standards based on Web Standards. Note also that:
>> 1. they are used as a way to handle navigation done with a standard  
>> remote control (so not keyboard tab navigation)
>> 2. they are implemented in TVs using Webkit as well as Opera/Presto  
>> based TVs.
>> Would be good to understand if there is any part of the spec that is  
>> NOT broken and can be kept in, to avoid forcing >other groups to have  
>> to reference an old CSS drafts  (practice that W3C usually try to  
>> discourage)
>> Thanks,
>> [1]
>> /g
>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 11:17:12 +0100, Giuseppe Pascale  
>> <> wrote:
>>> Hi Tantek,
>>> I've just read your mail exchange with my colleague Mike [1][2][3] and  
>>> I wanted to add few comments on that thread >as well as extend the  
>>> discussion to the Web&TV IG, as there could be other people that may  
>>> have an opinion on this >subject.
>>> In short, the CSS Basic UI spec [4] mark nav-* properties as at risk,  
>>> and you seem to agree they should be dropped.
>>> As already mentioned by Mike in [1] and [3] , we (Opera) do recommend  
>>> use of nav-* properties for our TV store >Apps, and AFAIK so far we  
>>> haven't received any complaint (this doesn't mean there are no issues  
>>> of course, but at >least we haven't heard of any)
>>> Furthermore, as also mentioned by Mike, there are other specifications  
>>> referencing CSS nav-* properties, namely >HbbTV [5].
>>> The HbbTV specification, although not aimed to the "Open Web", it's  
>>> still a public specification and is currently >supported in Europe by  
>>> many retail devices (mostly TVs and STBs), not only Opera based but  
>>> also Webkit based
>>> Also in this case, I haven't heard (so far) any complaint from (Hbb)TV  
>>> apps developers.
>>> Given the pointers above, can you help me (us) understand what is the  
>>> problem with css nav-* properties and why you >want to drop them? As  
>>> they seem to be used and supported by different browsers, would be  
>>> possible to investigate more >in details what is working (and what is  
>>> not) and maybe drop only the problematic parts (if any)?
>>> I appreciate you may have debated this at length before on the  
>>> www-style list, but I was wondering if for the >benefit of the web&tv  
>>> folks you could summarize the issues and provide related pointers.
>>> Also note that personally I haven't done an in depth analysis of the  
>>> spec and/or the implementations out there, but >I wanted to get this  
>>> discussion started ASAP as the deadline for comments is already passed.
>>> Thanks.
>>> [1]
>>> [2]
>>> [3]
>>> [4]
>>> [5]
>> --
>> Giuseppe Pascale
>> Product Manager TV & Connected Devices
>> Opera Software

Giuseppe Pascale
Product Manager TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software

Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2013 08:30:38 UTC