Re: [css3-ui] cursor:auto (Issue 48)

> On 04 Feb 2015, at 08:08, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday 2015-02-03 18:49 +0100, Florian Rivoal wrote:
>> 4) links
>> 
>> A ''pointer'' cursor is normally shown over links. However, this can easily
>> be expressed in the UA stylesheet:
>> 
>> :link, :visited {cursor: pointer;}  /*or :any-link, if implemented */
>> 
>> This is actually what the whatwg's UA stylesheet for HTML specifies
>> (https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/rendering.html#phrasing-content-3),
>> and at least Firefox already seems to be handling it this way.
>> 
>> => 'auto' does not need to account for links
> 
> In the teleconference minuted at
> http://www.w3.org/mid/CADhPm3s4ZmQJVgJu3pAnnHH6Q0SU3B+t5MBkLhggfD7-J=xuqg@mail.gmail.com
> Simon Fraser (smfr) brought up some more complicated issues with
> links and editing.  It's worth double-checking that those cases are
> fine as well.

This one?
smfr: To give an example in the webkit code there's interesting
      things happening if your cursor is over a link. You can
      click the link or click and start editing the link. There's
      a setting that applies to that under the author value right
      now.
smfr: And in addition to that it's something that's hard to
      describe in the UA style sheet.

I am not sure I fully follow, but I guess that smfr is talking
about <a contenteditable>foo</a> being styled with a cursor that looks
like the text one when the cursor value is auto, which seems to
be what safari is doing. However, that can be easily expressed
with: ":read-write {cursor: text;}" in the UA stylesheet (See
selectors 4 for :read-write [1]).

Firefox's UA stylesheet seems to have this, for example:
":-moz-any-link:-moz-read-write {cursor: text;}"

So under the mandate of "Everything that can be handled via the UA
style sheet should be, and auto should be defined to account for
necessary behavior that cannot be dealt with this way.",  it seems
that auto doesn't need to account for this either.

> Otherwise, of course, I'm happy to see your analysis, since it comes
> to the same conclusion that I've been advocating all along. :-)

After the telecon, I was worried this would be more complicated, and
that we might need to dive into the various implementations to sort
out the details, but after looking closer, it seems that it isn't so.
Accidental simplicity?

 - Florian

[1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors-4/#read-write-pseudo

Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2015 17:18:05 UTC