Re: [css-ui] Updated WD of CSS-UI L3

http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-ui/
Florian Rivoal  wrote:
>> timeless wrote:
>> Is it worth calling out other at-risk pieces, like the resize: must?
> resize doesn't have a 'must' value, and none of the values of resize
> are at risk. What do you mean?

>>> The user agent must allow the user to resize the element with no other constraints than what is imposed by min-width, max-width, min-height, and max-height.
>>> (The "must" is at risk since only Firefox currently supports this, and may be downgraded to a "should").


>> (and the ellipsis: string)
>
> "text-overflow: string" is called out as being at risk at the top of
> the document, and not in the main text.

> I am not sure what you are suggesting.

could you make:
>>> text-overflow property value: <string>
>>> text-overflow property 2-value syntax and definition
... link to the relevant sections instead of the generic `text-overflow` ?
... and could you include the word "ellipsis" in that part of the
intro, because while it's technically correct, it isn't discoverable
w/o reading through the whole section.

>>> ellipsed
>>
>> Android has:
>>> getEllipsizedText
>>
>> I'm familiar w/ ellipsized, I don't think there's any particular
>> reason to use "ellipsed" instead (the "dictionaries" for "ellipsed"
>> just say past tense of ellipse which makes no sense).
>
> Dictionaries I've checked don't have ellipsize, and the first google
> hit for "ellipsized" is "What does ellipsize mean in android?"
>
> Merriam-Webster doesn't have "to ellipse" as a verb either, but
> wikitionary does, with the meaning we want:
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ellipse#Verb

No, actually. In that case, the words were omitted, the ellipsis were
not inserted:

>>> In B's response to A's question:- (A: Would you like to go out?, B: I'd love to), the words that are ellipsed are go out.

> Even if it is a rare word, I think we're fine.

Only if it has the right meaning, which I claim it doesn't.

>>> 4.4. outline-color property
>>> The outline-color property accepts all colors, as well as the keyword invert. Invert is expected to perform a color inversion on the pixels on the screen. This is a common trick to ensure the focus border is visible, regardless of color background.
>>> Conformant UAs may ignore the invert value on platforms that do not support color inversion of the pixels on the screen.
>>> If the UA does not support the invert value then it must reject that value at parse-time, and the initial value of the outline-color property is the currentColor [CSS3COLOR] keyword.
>>
>> This definition of behavior doesn't really match what OS X does.
>>
>> A picture of what it does is included here:
>> http://tjvantoll.com/2013/01/28/stop-messing-with-the-browsers-default-focus-outline/
>
> The outline in webkit and Blink does look somewhat peculiar, but this is triggered through
> "outline-style:auto". According to the spec:
>
> The auto value permits the user agent to render a custom outline style, typically a style which is either a user interface default for the platform, or perhaps a style that is richer than can be described in detail in CSS, e.g. a rounded edge outline with semi-translucent outer pixels that appears to glow. As such, this specification does not define how the outline-color is incorporated or used (if at all) when rendering auto style outlines.
>
> This is intended to allow the behavior you see.

Ah, I missed (and suspect others would miss) that last sentence. It's
buried in the text for `outline-style`, but I was reading the text for
`outline-color`. I'd request that you add a sentence to
`outline-color` noting that its value may be ignored if
`outline-style` is `auto`...

> Firefox seems a bit stranger here, as it does not seem to reliably
> support "outline-style:auto", even though it does show a native outline
> around focused elements. It do not consider it a conforming implementation.

I'm not representing any implementers :), I suppose they might welcome
bug reports.

>>> Note: Since the outline does not affect formatting (i.e., no space is left for it in the box model), it may well overlap other elements on the page.
>>
>> Please consider adding a note "for accessibility purposes, just
>> turning off or otherwise messing with this property is likely to
>> result in an application which isn't accessible and will result in
>> accessibility people threatening you (and governments refusing to buy
>> your products)"
>>
>> https://www.section508.gov/
>
> We already have this a bit higher up in the spec:
>
>   "Keyboard users depend on outline on elements in the
>    :focus state for interaction with the page, thus authors
>    must not make the outline invisible on such elements without
>    making sure an alternative highlighting mechanism is provided."

Yes, I saw that (I read the spec...), it's too far away, and IMO too weak.

> It's not quite as threatening as your suggestion, but it does
> make it a spec violation (which validators should call out) for
> authors to disable it when they shouldn't.
>
> I am not sure it is the place for this specification to comment
> on what third parties might do to you if you do violate the spec.

My comment here is also an anchor for someone from WCAG or somewhere to comment.

>>> 5.1. resize property
>>> Initial: none
>>
>> I'm not sure if it's worth noting that UA styles may have other values
>> for specific nodes (e.g. iframes or textareas),...
>
> "Initial" has a very specific meaning, see
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-cascade/#initial-values

Yes, I know the meaning of Initial. I was just anchoring the comment
there for lack of a better anchor.

> UA styles are a separate matter.

The other place which you offered to accept w/ CSS WG agreement is
probably better.

>>> Selecting the ellipsis should select the ellipsed text. If all of the ellipsed text is selected, UAs should show selection of the ellipsis.
> I assume you meant "[...] but the ellipsis isn't selected".
> I agree that Firefox does not implement this correctly, and
> neither does it correctly implement "Selecting the ellipsis
> should select the ellipsed text".
>
> At the same time, note that the sentence you quoted uses "should"
> not "must", which means we recommend that browsers do it, but
> we do not strictly require it.

Sure. I only noted it because I noticed while reviewing the spec.

Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2015 11:57:04 UTC