Re: [css-ui-4] Feedback before f2f

> On 24 Aug 2015, at 12:30, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Sorry for the generic title, but this feedback crosses across the spec. :/
> 
> We (Chrome team) reviewed UI 4 in preparation for the f2f, and have a
> few bits of feedback.
> 
> 1. We should just drop caret-blink-time.  We don't think there's any
> actual use-case for controlling this in the first place, and doing so
> is an accessibility issue (blinking things too rapidly).  Also, we're
> not sure this is actually controllable in OSes.  If you really feel
> like screwing with the user, you can do it by flashing caret-color.

I agree, I am just late updating this. I will drop caret-blink-time. We should just have "caret-animation: auto | blink | none | fade", as discussed on the other thread. I'll try to have the spec updated for the meeting.

> 2. We should keep 'appearance' limited to just "auto" and "none"
> values.  "button" is going to be hard/weird to apply arbitrarily, and
> it's not clear the use-case is strong here in the first place.  If you
> want something to look like a button, use a <button>.

I'm probably ok with this, but I need to think. I am not strongly attached to the button value, but I think the underlying model I have is sound when it comes to values other than auto and none, and should any browser want to add extra values, even if these values are not in the spec, I think it would be good if they followed that model.

Let's discuss at the f2f.

> 3. We support changing the name of the "element" value for
> 'user-select'.  We're happy with the "contain" idea.

Done.

> 4. Can we change the "text" value too?  Maybe to "contents"?  This
> value means you can select everything, not just text, so the current
> name is weird.

Unlike "element", this is an old value supported across the board, so I doubt we can actually change it. You should have more data than me about whether that's doable.

If we actually can, I agree the name "text" is bad. I am not sure about "contents", as I think it would be easy to confuse with "contains". Maybe "normal".


> 5. We're okay with the text about "user-select:none" and its
> application to editting, but are concerned that this isn't the right
> spec to talk about this.  Is there an "editting" spec that can talk
> about this?  The Editing TF just happened - anything come out of that
> we can move this to?

The discussions in the Editing TF means that maybe we don't need this note
anymore at all, as js authors will be empowered to implement which ever behavior they want for deletion, making sure they can get this. I'll explain at the f2f.

 - Florian

Received on Monday, 24 August 2015 15:15:27 UTC