Re: Date, time, week, month and datetime attributes in the in Firefox

[Xidorn Quan]

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Jonas Sicking  wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Xidorn Quan  wrote:
>> Authors sometimes just want something usable. It doesn't matter if it
>> is not stylable, or it doesn't fit in the UI. When they really need to
>> start caring about such things, they can switch to use jQuery UI then.
>
> I think this is true for a *very* small number of authors. Small
> enough that we should spend our time on more impactful things.
>
> Look at the tooling websites that we use within mozilla. bugzilla.m.o,
> treeherder.m.o, wiki.m.o and MDN all care about a pleasant look and
> feel.

OK, let's look at bugzilla.m.o. It uses ,  without any special style on them. Do they
look very bad within its context?

Actually it seems to me, as we do not provide any decent method for
styling things inside form controls, pushing people to mix normal form
controls with jQuery UI components could be even worse for UI
consistency.

> Also remember that jQuery UI also works fine for websites that "just
> wants something usable".

It unnecessarily bloats the page. It requires the whole huge jQuery
plus two additional jQuery UI files, which should have been completely
avoidable for a page designed for modern browsers.

- Xidorn
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Date, time, week, month and datetime attributes in the in Firefox

[Kartikaya Gupta]

IMO given the number of people who have complained about the lack of this
feature on bug 825294, we should assume it is desirable to have even if
unstylable. If somebody claims otherwise the burden of proof should be on
them to show data that falsifies the assumption.

kats
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Xidorn Quan  wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Jonas Sicking  wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Xidorn Quan 
wrote:
>>> Authors sometimes just want something usable. It doesn't matter if it
>>> is not stylable, or it doesn't fit in the UI. When they really need to
>>> start caring about such things, they can switch to use jQuery UI then.
>>
>> I think this is true for a *very* small number of authors. Small
>> enough that we should spend our time on more impactful things.
>>
>> Look at the tooling websites that we use within mozilla. bugzilla.m.o,
>> treeherder.m.o, wiki.m.o and MDN all care about a pleasant look and
>> feel.
>
> OK, let's look at bugzilla.m.o. It uses ,  type="file/checkbox/radio"> without any special style on them. Do they
> look very bad within its context?
>
> Actually it seems to me, as we do not provide any decent method for
> styling things inside form controls, pushing people to mix normal form
> controls with jQuery UI components could be even worse for UI
> consistency.
>
>> Also remember that jQuery UI also works fine for websites that "just
>> wants something usable".
>
> It unnecessarily bloats the page. It requires the whole huge jQuery
> plus two additional jQuery UI files, which should have been completely
> avoidable for a page designed for modern browsers.

I'd really recommend talking to web developers rather than guessing at
their needs.

I hear *a lot* of webdevelopers complaining about the lack of ability
to style current controls. But don't take my word for it, do reach out
to developers, we have a developer relations team that I'm sure is
happy to help.

/ Jonas
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Date, time, week, month and datetime attributes in the in Firefox

[Jonas Sicking]

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Xidorn Quan  wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Jonas Sicking  wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Xidorn Quan  wrote:
>>> Authors sometimes just want something usable. It doesn't matter if it
>>> is not stylable, or it doesn't fit in the UI. When they really need to
>>> start caring about such things, they can switch to use jQuery UI then.
>>
>> I think this is true for a *very* small number of authors. Small
>> enough that we should spend our time on more impactful things.
>>
>> Look at the tooling websites that we use within mozilla. bugzilla.m.o,
>> treeherder.m.o, wiki.m.o and MDN all care about a pleasant look and
>> feel.
>
> OK, let's look at bugzilla.m.o. It uses ,  type="file/checkbox/radio"> without any special style on them. Do they
> look very bad within its context?
>
> Actually it seems to me, as we do not provide any decent method for
> styling things inside form controls, pushing people to mix normal form
> controls with jQuery UI components could be even worse for UI
> consistency.
>
>> Also remember that jQuery UI also works fine for websites that "just
>> wants something usable".
>
> It unnecessarily bloats the page. It requires the whole huge jQuery
> plus two additional jQuery UI files, which should have been completely
> avoidable for a page designed for modern browsers.

I'd really recommend talking to web developers rather than guessing at
their needs.

I hear *a lot* of webdevelopers complaining about the lack of ability
to style current controls. But don't take my word for it, do reach out
to developers, we have a developer relations team that I'm sure is
happy to help.

/ Jonas
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Date, time, week, month and datetime attributes in the in Firefox

[Robert O'Callahan]

html5test.com gives points for supporting those  types. That alone
doesn't justifying doing them, but it's not nothing either.

Rob
-- 
lbir ye,ea yer.tnietoehr  rdn rdsme,anea lurpr  edna e hnysnenh hhe uresyf
toD
selthor  stor  edna  siewaoeodm  or v sstvr  esBa  kbvted,t
rdsme,aoreseoouoto
o l euetiuruewFa  kbn e hnystoivateweh uresyf tulsa rehr  rdm  or rnea
lurpr
.a war hsrer holsa rodvted,t  nenh hneireseoouot.tniesiewaoeivatewt sstvr
esn
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendations: Canvas 2D Context & W3C DOM4

[L. David Baron]

On Wednesday 2015-10-21 11:38 -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 10/20/15 6:13 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> >   W3C DOM4
> >   http://www.w3.org/TR/dom/
> >   deadline: November 3, 2015
> >
> >Both specifications are derived from upstream WHATWG specifications.
> 
> As of which date?
> 
> I ask because this looks like a fairly old fork, containing various
> requirements that are known to not be web-compatible and which have long
> since been fixed upstream (e.g. the createAttribute mess).
> 
> >If there are comments you think Mozilla should send as part of the
> >review, or if you think Mozilla should voice support or opposition
> >to the specification, please say so in this thread.  (I'd note,
> >however, that there have been many previous opportunities to make
> >comments, so it's somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues
> >for the first time at this stage.)
> 
> There are fundamental issues we've brought up before, and which continue to
> be unaddressed (though noted) in this specification.  Or indeed upstream.  I
> assume raising them at this point is not useful, of course.
> 
> In general, I think we should make it clear that this specification as
> written is known to be not-web-compatible and that we have no plans to base
> implementation activity on this specification as a result.

Based on this feedback, my current intention is to explicitly
abstain from the review, with the following comment:

  We're ok with this spec being published as a Recommendation, although
  we're not especially happy about the state that it's in.

  In particular, the specification includes various things where the
  upstream WHATWG spec tried to make improvements that turned out not to
  be compatible with existing Web content (e.g., createAttribute), and
  have since been reverted as a result.  (A more thorough test suite might
  have detected these unimplemented parts of the spec.)  There are also
  unadressed open issues in the upstream specification.

  So while this specification is not in great shape, we're ok with the W3C
  making it a Recommendation, although we hope that these issues will be
  addressed in future levels of the specification.

Does this seem reasonable?

-David

-- 
턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
 What I was walling in or walling out,
 And to whom I was like to give offense.
   - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform