- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 13:51:02 -0800
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 1:35 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Wednesday 2014-11-12 13:26 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 9:50 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >> > 2. The current list of acceptable properties is >> > - color >> > - background-color >> > - cursor >> > - outline >> > - text-decoration >> > - text-emphasis-color (but not text-emphasis) >> > - text-shadow >> > >> > a. Are these acceptable? >> > b. Should any other properties be added? >> > c. All but the first two are currently optional. Should any others be >> > required? >> >> Why aren't we just using the ::first-line list? > > ::selection is implemented very differently from ::first-line; > ::first-line works like a rendering object, whereas ::selection > changes the painting behavior of text. You also don't want to allow > ::selection styles to affect layout. Makes sense. >> > 3. All four browser engines drop the OS colors with when either of 'color' >> > or 'background-color' is unspecified. This means we have to violate >> > dbaron's #2 requirement (that the OS colors be representable as a UA >> > style rule): >> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Oct/0268.html >> > >> > Given that, I'm assuming this is a Web-compat requirement. >> > Shall this be required behavior? >> >> Assuming it's web-compat, yes. > > Is someone going to check that assumption in some way? I assume. It would likely be a case of "let's try the better way, and see if we get compat complaints". I was just saying that *if* it was web-compat required, then I'm fine with putting it in the spec. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 21:51:49 UTC