W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2015

Re: [CSSWG] [css-cascade] CSS Cascading and Inheritance: Updated L3 CR, FPWD L4

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 12:40:39 -0700
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CA07C74B-0BA8-4BD6-8EBD-10B84947F147@gmail.com>
To: Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru>


> On Jun 20, 2015, at 9:13 AM, Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru> wrote:
> 
> How often is `cursor: default` used,

A lot?

> and how often it seriously (and positively) affects user experience and changing its current meaning would negatively affect user experience?

Subjective, but I would say "A lot". 

> For example, if a web developer uses `cursor: default` for a link (`A` element), the link will just be effectively returned to `cursor: pointer` if we change `default`-keyword meaning. `cursor: pointer` is natural and totally fine for links,moreover using links as something else is a bad practice anyway (e.g. if a link is temporarily unclickable, then its `href` attribute should be removed instead of its cursor be changed to mimic non-link styling).

That rarely happens in practice, I think. You'd have to store the href value for when you wanted to make it clickable again. It's far easier to just give it a class that changes the color and cursor, and make it return false when clicked. 

Besides, we should not be breaking the web because we think our design ideas are better than someone else's. 

> Would it be really unacceptable if elements had their original cursors instead of OS-level default one? 

I'd say yes. By your reasoning, we shouldn't even have an author-alterable cursor property. 
Received on Saturday, 20 June 2015 19:41:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:54 UTC