On 03/29/2011 03:27 PM, Wilhelm Joys Andersen wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently writing tests in preparation for Opera's implementation
of <details> and <summary>. In relation to this, I have a few questions
about issues that, as far as I can tell, are currently undefined in the
specification.
The spec says:
"If there is no child summary element [of the details element], the
user agent should provide its own legend (e.g. "Details")." [1]
How exactly should this legend be provided? Should the user agent add
an implied <summary> element to the DOM, similar to <tbody>, a
pseudo-element, or a magic non-element behaving differently from both
of the above?
FWIW I think that, from a spec point of view, it should just act as if
the first block box container in the shadow tree contained some
UA-provided text i.e. no magic parser behavior.
This indicates that it is slightly more magic than I would prefer. I
believe a closer resemblance to an ordinary element would be more
convenient for authors - a ::summary pseudo element with "Details" as
its content() might be the cleanest approach, although that would
require a few more bytes in the author's stylesheet to cater to both
author- and UA-defined summaries:
summary, ::summary {
color: green;
}
::summary could be defined to just match the first block box element in
the <details> shadow tree. That way you could just write
::summary {color:green}
for both cases. I note that optimising for the non-conforming case seems
a bit unnecessary, however.
That's a rather small clickable area, which might get troublesome to hit
on a fuzzy touchscreen or for someone with limited motor skills. I suggest
the whole block area of <summary>, too, is made clickable - as if it was
a <label> for the ::marker.
Making the whole ::summary clickable would seem consistent with the rest
of the platform where labels are typically clickable.
