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

Hi timeless,

Thank you again for your comments. The CSSWG has discussed
the remaining issues, and we have accepted some of your
suggestions and not others. Please see the minutes, and
reply to this message with more details if this is not
acceptable. If it is acceptable, explicit OK would
be appreciated.

Minutes: http://www.w3.org/blog/CSS/2015/06/11/minutes-telecon-249/

>>> Appendix D. Default style sheet additions for HTML
>> 
>> 
>>> textarea
>>> {
>>> /* white space handling of TEXTAREA tags in particular */
>>> white-space:pre-wrap;
>>> }
>> 
>> This should also have: resize: both
>> 
>> Most browsers seem to have moved to this.
> 
> This seems like a reasonable suggestion. I'll add this to the spec
> if the CSSWG agrees.

The CSSWG agreed with your suggestion, and the specification has been
updated with this change.

>> 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.
> [...]
> I've recorded the issue and will bring to the CSSWG.

This is tracked as Issue 96:
https://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css3-ui?&#issue-96

We have not yet acted upon this, but we intend to make clarifications.

>>>> 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).
> 
> The issue is recorded, I'll get the opinion of the broader CSSWG
> which includes native english speakers (I am not one).

The CSSWG has deferred to the editors on this topic, and the Editors
have decided to reject the suggestion. We believe the word we have
chosen, although not a common word, is adequate for the meaning we
are giving it.

>> 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`...
> 
> Informative note are useful, but the sentence you say is "buried in
> the text for outline-style" is just two sentences earlier than the text you
> quoted, in the previous paragraph.
> 
> I am not convinced repeating ourselves so much would help with readability.
> 
> I've recorded the issue and will bring to the CSSWG.

The CSSWG has deferred to the editors on this topic, and the editors
have decided to reject the suggestion. We do not believe that repetition
would improve the readability of the specification.

>>>>> 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)"

In agreement with your comment, we have:
* Visually highlighted the relevant requirement on authors

* Rephrased the requirement on authors to better explain why it matters,
  using the following text:

>  "Keyboard users, in particular people with disabilities who may
>  not be able to interact with the page in any other fashion,
>  depend on the outline  being visible on elements in the :focus state,
>  thus authors must not make the outline invisible on such elements without
>  making sure an alternative highlighting mechanism is provided."

However, we have decided to reject your suggestion to add something along
the lines of
  "[...] will result in accessibility people threatening you (and governments
   refusing to buy your products)"

We believe that it is out of scope for a W3C specification to comment on the
possible reactions of third parties to specification violations.

Best regards,
Florian

Received on Thursday, 11 June 2015 11:06:10 UTC