LGTM3 On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 12:19 PM Manuel Rego Casasnovas <r...@igalia.com> wrote:
> LGTM2, it's nice we're catching up with WebKit. > > I still miss the whole picture in the spec with all the properties and > different values: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-color-adjust/ > Maybe a good explainer for the whole thing would be welcomed. > > Cheers, > Rego > > On 04/11/2021 19:49, Daniel Bratell wrote: > > LGTM1 > > > > /Daniel > > > > On 2021-10-29 21:09, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 10/28/21 13:14, Rune Lillesveen wrote: > >>> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 12:11 PM Manuel Rego Casasnovas > >>> <r...@igalia.com <mailto:r...@igalia.com>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Some comments inline. > >>> > >>> On 27/10/2021 16:09, Rune Lillesveen wrote: > >>> > Summary > >>> > > >>> > The 'only' keyword has been re-added to the specification for > >>> > color-scheme as a way of per-element opt-out of color-scheme > >>> override > >>> > like forced darkening. > >>> > >>> I guess this is the CSSWG discussion about re-adding it: > >>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5089 > >>> <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5089> > >>> > >>> > >>> Correct. > >>> > >>> > Previously, both declarations below would force the div > >>> element into > >>> > color-scheme dark and apply forced darkening. With this > >>> change, the > >>> > second declaration would opt-out of forced darkening and keep > the > >>> used > >>> > color-scheme 'light'. > >>> > > >>> > div { color-scheme: light } div { color-scheme: only light } > will > >>> keep > >>> > the color-scheme for the element light and opt-out of forced > >>> darkening. > >>> > >>> Let me clarify this comment, this is happening when we're in forced > >>> darkening, am I right? > >>> First I read it too quickly and "color-scheme: light" forcing the > >>> DIV > >>> into color-scheme dark was weird. > >>> > >>> Correct, when we're in forced darkening, or color-scheme override > >>> which is the term used by the specification. > >>> > >>> > This feature is already enabled as part of an original trial > >>> in M96: > >>> > https://chromestatus.com/features/5672533924773888 > >>> <https://chromestatus.com/features/5672533924773888> > >>> > <https://chromestatus.com/features/5672533924773888 > >>> <https://chromestatus.com/features/5672533924773888>> > >>> > >>> Do we have any results to comment from the origin trial? Or it was > >>> mostly for auto dark mode and this was just a small bit of it? > >>> > >>> > >>> That was mostly for auto dark mode, but Peter can confirm. > >>> > >>> > Gecko: In development > >>> > (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1576289 > >>> <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1576289> > >>> > <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1576289 > >>> <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1576289>>) Development > of > >>> > the color-scheme property in progress. At least blocker issues > >>> are being > >>> > fixed. > >>> > >>> Not sure if this is in development, as there seems to be not recent > >>> activity on the bug; but they indeed look interested in > implementing > >>> color-scheme property. Do we have any feedback from Mozilla about > >>> this > >>> "only" keyword? > >>> > >>> > >>> Emilio (added) has been fixing blocker issues, fixing tests, doing > >>> spec changes for <meta name="color-scheme=">, etc, which I took as a > >>> signal of Mozilla working on it. > >> > >> Yeah, indeed. I guess my only question about the only keyword is > >> whether it'd be applicable to printing as well. > >> > >> In particular, Chrome right now respects <meta name=color-scheme > >> content=dark> while printing, but it might be reasonable for UAs to > >> force it to light in that case, in order to save ink... > >> > >> I guess `only` could also serve as a hint for the UA to not do such > >> thing... But then again we already have a way to opt out of similar > >> adjustments with `color-adjust: exact`. Was extending / expanding the > >> scope of the `color-adjust` property for this, instead of adding an > >> `only` value to `color-scheme` considered? > >> > >> -- Emilio > >> > >>> -- > >>> Rune Lillesveen > >>> > >>> -- > >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >>> Groups "blink-dev" group. > >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > >>> send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org > >>> <mailto:blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org>. > >>> To view this discussion on the web visit > >>> > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CACuPfeTAFoyWbcQxnnHqhGcUWoZyOrBtfc%2BjcgnUVESnoSyPYw%40mail.gmail.com > >>> < > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CACuPfeTAFoyWbcQxnnHqhGcUWoZyOrBtfc%2BjcgnUVESnoSyPYw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer > >. > >>> > >> > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "blink-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/e80ef8af-d68e-52ea-5238-773739cccb78%40igalia.com > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOMQ%2Bw-O92APcL8fVNqyVnOMukdj9A%3D1_TCQBBstLpRa0cU2Nw%40mail.gmail.com.
