- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 18:49:21 +0100
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Cc: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>, Mats Palmgren <mats@mozilla.com>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
> 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. - Florian
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 17:49:46 UTC