On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 10:51 PM Domenic Denicola <dome...@chromium.org> wrote:
> SpecificationNone >> > > My understanding is that appearance: none has a specification, probably > around https://drafts.csswg.org/css-ui/#appearance-switching . Can you > ensure this field is filled out, and more importantly, that the > implementation you propose is in accordance with the specification? > Sure, I can add it. I'm thinking that " https://drafts.csswg.org/css-ui/#appearance-decorative"; seems most appropriate, which states: "UAs should include in their user agent stylesheet style rules to give widgets a recognizable shape when appearance is none. <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-ui/#appearance-decorative>". I didn't find anything else in the spec defining how the fall back styles should look like. Please let me know if I missed something. Risks >> >> >> Interoperability and Compatibility >> >> The Interoperability Risk is Low. This change increases interop with >> Safari and Firefox which already provide a reasonable fallback style for >> <meter> elements with `appearance: none`. The Compatibility Risk is Low. >> > > Can you say more about the compatibility risk? How often are authors using > appearance: none on meter elements today, and how will their pages' > appearances and layout change? > The usage of 'appearance: none ' <https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/994> for the meter element seems to be around 0.006 () VS around 0.01 for 'appearance: auto' usage <https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/993>. Regarding the rendering of appearance none, we will display a fall back style instead of being invisible. Regarding layout change, there is no change since the size is defined on the meter element itself, and we are not changing that. Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >> ?No >> > > Why not? > Since I did not find fall back style rendering being specified I thought that we shouldn't add them to wpt-external, however I added a set of wpt-internal tests in: https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/web_tests/wpt_internal/html/semantics/forms/the-meter-element/ Based on the definition of "UAs should include in their user agent stylesheet style rules to give widgets a recognizable shape when appearance is none. <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-ui/#appearance-decorative>" in " https://drafts.csswg.org/css-ui/#appearance-decorative"; I created a CL adding WPT external tests asserting that <meter> with 'appearance: none' should not render the same as <meter> with 'appearance: auto': https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/5790065 > Flag name on chrome://flagsMeterAppearanceNoneFallbackStyle >> >> Finch feature nameNone >> >> Non-finch justificationNone >> > > Please include the justification for why this does not have a Finch > killswitch, or add one. > My mistake. The flag I added is a "Finch feature name". I moved it to the correct field. Sorry for the confusion. Regards, Traian -- 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/CAFxahvusFtt7Pd2Y57fqdiptREb1ae%2BjsXpaqLXrvP61mSxB9w%40mail.gmail.com.
