- From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 11:37:37 +1100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>, Mats Palmgren <mats@mozilla.com>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
Thanks Tab. I'm going to consider this issue 50 resolved with consensus for CSS3-UI then, and we can add it to the list of things to re-introduce in CSS4-UI. https://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css3-ui#issue-50 Tantek On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: >>> On 06 Dec 2014, at 11:52, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: >>>> On 06 Dec 2014, at 09:43, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> After reading fantasai and Ryosuke's replies, and talking to a few >>>> people, I changed my opinion to not to define this in CSS UI at least >>>> in Level 3. >>>> >>>> Currently Editing TF is working on overhauling selection and editing, >>>> and defining selectability is a bit too hurry. CSS could define how >>>> selection looks, but as Ryosuke said, I think it's better for the >>>> selection and editing experts to define and CSS to refer to it. >>> >>> Right. If we can neither define how it looks nor how it behaves without >>> referring to specs that haven't been written yet, the benefits of >>> standardizing it now seem limited to me. Even if we get some high level >>> description in, we could not go very far when it comes to writing tests. >>> >>> I am still of the opinion we should put this in level 4, marking the interop >>> issues explicitly, and taking our time to solve them properly based on >>> Editing TF's work. >> >> Question to those who supported bringing this back into level 3 (Tab, and maybe Ted, and maybe someone else?): >> >> Given that CSS-UI level 3 is trying exit its long cycle of LC/CR, and given the interop issues surfaced by this thread, do you still think this is something that should go in level 3 (with sufficiently vague definitions to ignore the interop issues for now), or should it go to level 4 (which I plan to start as soon as level 3 hits CR) where we can try to work through the interop questions? >> >> I favor level 4. > > Sure. > > ~TJ
Received on Sunday, 8 February 2015 00:38:46 UTC