Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Bikeshed: what should <popup> be called? #416

Closed
mfreed7 opened this issue Nov 12, 2021 · 7 comments
Closed

Bikeshed: what should <popup> be called? #416

mfreed7 opened this issue Nov 12, 2021 · 7 comments

Comments

@mfreed7
Copy link
Collaborator

mfreed7 commented Nov 12, 2021

See this comment for more context. But the direction the <popup> proposal is heading is toward an accessibility mapping to role="dialog". And a proposed semantic definition of <popup> is:

"a transient non-modal dialog box, which is displayed on top of all other content. Popups are necessarily transient, such that only one is open at a time, and taking action elsewhere hides the popup.".

Given the above, it feels like instead of "<popup>", the element name should better-indicate its connection to dialogs.

Some starting ideas:

  • <popupdialog>
  • <transientdialog>

What other ideas do folks have?

@chrisdholt
Copy link
Collaborator

Just a gut reaction, and this is purely subjective, but I think "popup" in this case feels redundant as all the elements being proposed in the current <popup> proposal are some form of it. I'm leaning towards <transientdialog>of the two just given that initial feeling. If I think of any additional names, I'll drop them here :)

@zcorpan
Copy link
Contributor

zcorpan commented Nov 18, 2021

I would prefer shorter and easy-to-spell names for HTML, generally. (c.f. misspellings of <script language>.)

So, popupdialog seems better from this perspective.

similar comment about initiallyopen

Also, initiallyopen might be a bit long and subject to misspellings, alternatives could be initopen or autoopen (to mirror autofocus).

Edit: moved to #311 (comment)

@yinonov
Copy link

yinonov commented Nov 18, 2021

Pairing dialog to popup would necessarily mean popup contains interactive content. Like a 2 way interaction. Is that always the case?

@chrisdholt
Copy link
Collaborator

Pairing dialog to popup would necessarily mean popup contains interactive content. Like a 2 way interaction. Is that always the case?

I think this allows for both types of content, whereas the inverse wouldn't be true.By choosing dialog it may or may not have it, but both are enabled which I think is a win.

@gregwhitworth gregwhitworth added the agenda+ Use this label if you'd like the topic to be added to the meeting agenda label Dec 1, 2021
@jonathantneal
Copy link
Contributor

Hi there 👋

This item is labelled for discussion in the next teleconference. @mfreed7, as an editor of the proposal and creator of the issue, would you be available and interested in discussing this in the teleconference for additional feedback?

If so, would this week or next week would best for you?

I’m also curious if anyone has assembled any pro/con lists applied to <popup>, <popupdialog>, and <transientdialog>?

@scottaohara
Copy link
Collaborator

scottaohara commented Mar 16, 2022

@jonathantneal this might be stale? see Mason's pr #490 for the updated popup proposal where it is no longer an element. though, bikeshedding on the name of the attribute may still be a topic of discussion. but per your mention of pro/cons to different element names, that's no longer applicable.

@mfreed7
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mfreed7 commented Mar 16, 2022

Thanks for the ping - this is definitely stale. In fact, I'm going to close this. There are some issues around naming, but I'm not quite ready to discuss them tomorrow.

@mfreed7 mfreed7 closed this as completed Mar 16, 2022
@mfreed7 mfreed7 removed the agenda+ Use this label if you'd like the topic to be added to the meeting agenda label Jun 16, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants