The plan to ship -webkit-appearance looks good to me, fwiw.
On 8/14/18 12:46 AM, Jonathan Watt wrote: > On 08/08/2018 16:31, Mike Taylor wrote: >> On 8/7/18 5:16 PM, Jonathan Watt wrote: >>> Spec: None. We're reverse engineering Chrome and ignoring >>> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-ui-4/#appearance-switching >>> since the 'appearance' property defined there is not >>> web compatible. >> >> From the "Possible ways forward" from that link, I think option 5 >> makes the most sense. We can always spec this in the Compat Standard, >> if the issue is never resolved. > > That's the option that I think makes most sense too, ... I fully agree that speccing -webkit-appearance is the way forward. I doubt it's possible to spec the rendering in detail, but it should be possible to spec at least the list of valid values and what each value does on various HTML elements in loose terms to the degree that any differences between UAs is unlikely to cause any major web-compat issues. Having a spec for it, even if it's vague, is good since it prevents UAs from introducing new values without going through the normal CSSWG process. /Mats _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
