- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 14:44:48 -0700
- To: "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com> wrote: > Lea wrote, in 2011: >> Something like: >> >> Name: caret >> Value: auto | <color> | invert > […] >> Implementors, would this be possible? > > Secondly, some RTE developers will want the caret to have a particular > color throughout the editing area. In the current proposal they can do > this by setting caret to an explicit <color>: > > [contenteditable] { > background: white; > color: black; > caret: #639; > } > > But what if they want to set the caret color to be the same as the > foreground color of the editable area, whatever that may be? You might > think that they can use the 'auto' keyword: > > [contenteditable] { > background: white; > color: black; > caret: auto; > } > > But consider this case (where the | represents the caret): > > <div contenteditable> > …<p style=color:red>this paragraph | is red</p>… > </div> > > If the RTE developer uses the 'auto' keyword, the caret will be red, > when they intended it to be black. (The p inherits caret: auto, and auto > means currentColor, so it's the p's currentColor, not the div's.) > > I suspect we need a new keyword for this case. Bikeshedding welcome. Lea's proposal didn't include "auto" - it was suggested by me, afterwards, and it didn't mean "currentcolor" (we'd just use "currentcolor" for that), it meant the UA default. That said, such a thing isn't useful, as you can just use "initial" to get the default behavior. We can certainly add an "auto" or similar keyword that resolves to a color at computed value time, so it inherits stably. We could even add it back as an ordinary <color>, if we can come up with a suitably understandable name. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 15 August 2014 21:45:36 UTC