- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:53:16 -0800
- To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>, Lea Verou <lea@verou.me>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: >> On 03 Dec 2014, at 22:24, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: >> This has previously been raised as >> https://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css3-ui#issue47 >> and >> https://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css3-ui#issue53 >> >> The behaviour of the resize property in the spec is defined in terms of a resize factor applied internally by the UA. Regardless of the theoretical merits of this approach, it does not match what all 3 implementations interoperably do. >> >> The current behaviour in FF, Chrome and Safari is that as soon as the user starts resizing the element, the width and height properties are set via the style attribute to the value the user resized to. >> >> Since implementations agree, we should make the spec match. > > As a side note, Fantasai made the following observation a while back: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Aug/0584.html > > Doing this as suggested in my previous mail would be the first mechanism we introduce where CSS writes to the dom. Everywhere else, CSS treats the dom as read only. > > Example highlighting consequences: > http://jsbin.com/likuvo/1/watch > > Since the interoperable behavior is to set the style attribute not just when the resize property is on, but also requires the user to actually go ahead and resize the element, and since it does not unset the style attribute if resize is set to none after resizing, this doesn't introduce any loop. > > Personally, I am ok with that, but I thought this was worth noting as we consider specifying this behavior. While I'm not the happiest about this (I generally agree with fantasai here), the interop is clear, and I'm fine with specifying that. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2014 18:54:04 UTC