17:59:14 RRSAgent has joined #openui 17:59:14 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/05/19-openui-irc 17:59:20 Zakim has joined #openui 17:59:25 Zakim, start meeting 17:59:25 RRSAgent, make logs Public 17:59:27 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), gregwhitworth 17:59:33 meeting: Open UI Telecon 17:59:48 scotto has joined #openui 17:59:48 gregwhitworth has changed the topic to: Agenda: https://github.com/openui/open-ui/blob/main/meetings/telecon/2022-05-19.md 18:01:34 present+ 18:01:34 present+ 18:01:39 masonf has joined #openui 18:01:40 present+ 18:01:46 present+ 18:01:49 present+ 18:01:50 present+ 18:01:53 scribe; hdv 18:01:56 scribe: hdv 18:02:37 bkardell_ has joined #openui 18:02:49 Topic: [CSSWG][selectors] Should :active apply to dialogs? #7258 18:02:59 present+ 18:03:02 present+ 18:03:06 github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7258 18:04:03 flackr has joined #openui 18:04:04 tantek: this was discussed in CSSWG, not enough info in CSSWG to make decision, I thought, so wanted to bring it here 18:04:11 present+ 18:04:25 tantek: I basically wanted the considerations from this group to be taken into account 18:04:28 present+ 18:04:33 q+ 18:05:25 q+ 18:05:50 gregwhitworth: peter's comment is basically, should you be able to select the active dialog with the active pseudo class? 18:06:32 bkardell_: some people had the concern that it is not intuitive… not sure if that's the big thing, for me the concern is some worry that because :active is used in stylesheets today so you would get false matches when people start using dialog? 18:06:33 link to plinss comment: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7258#issuecomment-1119861263 18:06:41 q? 18:06:42 q+ 18:06:51 ack JonathanNeal 18:07:05 bkardell_: but maybe that's no problem as those sites don't use dialog now and they can change it when they start using 18:07:10 q? 18:07:12 q+ 18:07:47 JonathanNeal: I saw the concern with :active… I use it myself for the 'pressing' state, the point after a spacebar or click begins… I find it to be an underused/poorly defined thing… it does have a meaning that I thinki s different… while I support the idea of this pseudo class I was going to ask if current had been considered? 18:08:09 JonathanNeal: I thought it was supposed to represent the current item to be displayed? 18:08:24 tantek: we did distinguish between functionality and bikesheddding the name of pseudo class 18:08:36 tantek: could this group address this separately? 18:08:53 ack masonf 18:08:53 tantek: so would the functionality tbe useful vs what do we call it and how does it match naming conventions? 18:09:13 masonf: I wanted to ask… was it decided not to combine it, I saw :active-modal , I presume that's off the table? 18:09:19 I see value in knowing the active/current modal. 18:09:22 tantek: I think we were not able to get to the naming in the meaning 18:09:54 I actually meant to ask how the “active modal” was defined. Does it contain focus? focus intent? 18:09:55 masonf: oh I mean… combining the two things in one pseudo class, I don't care about the names as much, but about that :modal and :active are two pseudo classes and not combined into a single one 18:10:11 q? 18:10:34 emilio: imagine you have a popup instead of dialog, like a tooltip, you probably wouldn't want the pseudo class to stop applying to the dialog? 18:10:39 masonf: why not? 18:11:05 masonf: what would you expect if the popup obscures the dialog? 18:11:18 emilio: modal dialogs are special in the sense that only one dialog is not inert… 18:11:21 I also support the general pseudo-class, like `:hover`, versus a specific pseudo-class like `:active-dialog`. 18:11:31 masonf: even if there is a popup on top of it and it covers the entire dialog? 18:11:37 q? 18:11:41 emilio: yes because the popup doesn't have modal semantics, doesn't make rest of page inert/ 18:11:51 Present+ 18:12:03 emilio: in Gecko we need a pseucodlass internally to distinuish modal from top most dialog 18:12:15 q? 18:12:20 q+ 18:12:34 +1 to emilio's point 18:12:34 emilio: I'm not sure what the distinction brings on something that is a modal… as long as it is not a modal you can just position things differently… can only have one at the time, and not true for any other top layer el 18:13:01 masonf: what does it mean to be top layer if I'm not necessarily on top of everything else, is something I was asked 18:13:17 ack emilio 18:13:30 emilio: the use case is highlighting or styling differently the active dialog, you may not care if it is on top 18:13:58 emilio: imagine a dialog that has a popup like thing… you lose the ability to differentiate the inert from the non inert if you just make the pseudo class the top most thing in the top layer? 18:14:11 emilio: I guess there is also a use case for distinguishing the top most thing? 18:14:35 masonf: that was a compelling example, maybe there is a need for two pseudo classes 18:14:36 ack tantek 18:15:08 tantek: there is the concept of active from UI perspective, and then there is the :active semantic, and they are not the same 18:15:29 tantek: :active is defined in CSS 1, it is something we have to live with… but we can avoid confusing developers 18:15:45 is this purely for "top most" (which sounds presentational) or is this about which modal dialog has the user's focus, in which case perhaps :focus-within https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/:focus-within could be combined with :modal? 18:15:57 tantek: the term topmost has been used… I'm not sure if I like that, it's kind of got a presentational framing. Is this about what the user's focus is, maybe something like focus-within could help? 18:16:24 tantek: so what is the actual functionality we are looking for… as opposed to what could we reuse from existing concepts? 18:16:25 q+ 18:16:28 ack JonathanNeal 18:16:33 JonathanNeal: want to +1 what tantek just said 18:16:59 JonathanNeal: my question is: could someone define this 'active top most' that we could apply to things like