- From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 12:41:24 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
On 5/6/13 11:00 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> >wrote: >> On 5/6/13 10:14 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >>>The ::value pseudo-element doesn't meaningfully exist, though. If >>>we'd *like* it to exist, then we can talk about its interaction with >>>::placeholder, and whether ::value+:placeholder-shown is a sufficient >>>replacement for ::placeholder. >> >> I have no idea what 'meaningful existence'…means; ::value remains >> defined in css3-ui [1] (though at risk). I do not see any language that >> suggests it will be removed vs. moved up to level 4. >> >> This feedback thus applies until this is clarified. >> >> [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-ui/#pseudo-elements > >Unfortunately, UI isn't a reliable spec to look at for this kind of >data. It contains several things which aren't implemented, and which >aren't planned on being implemented, but which Tantek is keeping in >this level for some reason. > >It's been my impression that ::value was not a "real" thing, for some >reasonable definition of "real" which allows us to build other >features on top of it. Note that this feedback is actually independent of whether or not there is a ::value pseudo-element. The *expectation* that, in most cases, the layout of of the placeholder is reflected by the value and vice-versa is imo important regardless of whether/how you can select them. Otherwise I can't really comment on anyone's impressions, or make assumptions on a spec's reliability. I will provide feedback on the specs we have and the WG's resolutions as they stand. css3-ui specifies ::value (which one shipping browser - IE10 - implements behind its vendor prefix). I'll let the editor get back to us.
Received on Monday, 6 May 2013 19:42:43 UTC