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

Re: [selectors] Suggestion for :focus-ring pseudoclass

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 10:49:53 +0900
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D5F91102-BEAE-47AD-8C89-4B20D4D79E73@rivoal.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> On 25 Sep 2015, at 03:06, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:
>> This seems to make sense. It builds off the same internal model that the input modality pseudo used, and exposes it in a syntax that is more to the point when trying to address the primary (only?) use case: the focus ring.
> And, nicely, actually requires no new logic or state; the browser
> already knows when it's showing a focus ring.

Right. The spec should stay away from trying to define when the focus ring is shown, it should only hook into the browser's existing logic for that.

>> The bit that confuses me a little is that you say "independently relevant". Do we still need the modality pseudo if we have this?
> That's what I'm discussing with Alice and Brian.  I'm currently of the
> opinion that, with the ability to customize how an element deals with
> focus rings, and possible better default behavior in some cases, we
> won't need anything further; they're currently thinking about
> use-cases and other possibilities that will require more
> functionality.

I'd tend to agree that as long as we can deal with focus rings, we're covered. But
it's worth exploring the other uses cases before we make a decision, because if
there are more use cases, and :focus-ring would not be enough for them, I am not
sure we want 2 different (but overlapping) mechanisms.

- Florian
Received on Friday, 25 September 2015 01:50:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:57 UTC