Add position for the inert attribute. #371
Conversation
Mark it as worth-prototyping as per this comment[1] and following. Closes #4288, let's continue the more technical discussion somewhere else, like in whatwg/html#5650. Same as mozilla#369, but with @dbaron's feedback addressed, because apparently I can't re-open a PR if I have already force-pushed to the same branch. [1]: mozilla#174 (comment)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM except two things:
- question for the commit in particular: Why the "mdn-api_" prefix on the ciuName? No other entries have that (except the recent "mdn-api_bluetooth").
- we should block on waiting for inert: Hit-testing / selection behavior shouldn't be magical. whatwg/html#5650 to be resolved with sufficient detail. Thanks.
I think it seems like caniuse is driving its newer entries off of MDN data rather than maintaining its own data. (This makes me wonder whether we should still be linking to caniuse rather than MDN.) |
|
Generally speaking, caniuse's data is quite unreliable. It concerns itself with blanket "is this technology supported?" instead of the more nuanced data we get from MDN (per attribute/method/spec-section). I'd be in favor or dropping caniuse from our positions entirely. MDN's data is also not perfect, but it's not bad either. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updated review. The MDN/caniuse question has been captured in #375, and it looks like there is at least passive consensus on @dbaron's latest comment in #174 (comment) (no objection from @emilio), in particular on this point:
I think it probably makes sense to look at changing the details of the mechanism underlying both it and inert as a separate discussion from what we think of inert, which seems like a valuable feature that has real user benefits.
So that removes the points I brought up in my previous review.
Mark it as worth-prototyping as per this comment1 and following.
Closes #174, let's continue the more technical discussion somewhere
else, like in whatwg/html#5650.
Same as #369, but with @dbaron's feedback addressed, because apparently
I can't re-open a PR if I have already force-pushed to the same branch.