On 01/30/2015 07:54 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Jan 30, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Alice Boxhall <aboxh...@google.com <mailto:aboxh...@google.com>> wrote: The only way it overcomes that is by relying on a proprietary extension called -webkit-appearance that is not standardized and does not work reliably across browsers. Furthermore, it's not at all clear to me why that example needs custom elements to begin with. If we assume this proprietary extension exists, we can just do this: http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?saved=3397
[...]
So, I naively ask, what's stopping us from standardising something like -webkit-appearance: none? I think that a bunch of the most common accessibility issues we see today come from people (quite justifiably) re-implementing standard HTML elements in order to get the styling they need - with or without using Custom Elements.
-webkit-appearance: none isn't a proprietary extension, it's a prefixed version of something that was once in a standards-track document. It got removed because there were serious design problems with the original idea, but some values stuck around.
Indeed. It would be really useful to solve this problem either with a CSS property like -webkit-appearance or decorator. Perhaps Tantek or Fantasai could enlighten us. Relevant URLs: https://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?type-index=www-style&index-type=t&keywords=appearance&search=Search https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Jul/0334.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Feb/0459.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Feb/0625.html
I think you caught the important points right there. Tantek and Florian are actively working on updating the CSS3 UI draft right now, so this might come up at the CSSWG f2f in a couple weeks. ~fantasai
