166509 - -moz-user-focus's values are inconsistent with the CSS3 UI WD

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(Core :: CSS Parsing and Computation, defect, P5)

Description

[Mike Gratton]

Moz allows "none" and "ignore" as values for the -moz-user-focus property, which
aren't defined by the CSS3 UI WD. And it doesn't allow the "auto" value, which
*is* defined by the WD.

I'd like to do the following to aid moving bug #97284 along, which doesn't seem
to be making much progress:

 - either fold "none" and "ignore" into one, or preferably remove both in favour
of using "-moz-user-input: none" instead.
 - add support for the "auto" value.
 - fix bug #138069

I realize that the CSS3 UI WD probably isn't going to go anywhere, but it does
exist and would serve as useful documentation for people such as myself who want
to do in-browser content editing.

Comment 1

[Mike Gratton]

CC'ing hyatt, bzbarsky to get some comments.
Adding keywords.

Comment 2

[David Baron :dbaron: (⌚️UTC-4, no longer working on Mozilla)]

The user-focus property is not defined at all by the latest public version of
the CSS3 UI WD.  Reappearance is unlikely, since it breaks the CSS model by
allowing properties to influence selectors.

The latest version is:
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-ui-20020802/
Note that css3-userint has been superseded by that draft:
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-userint-20020802

Comment 3

[Anne (:annevk)]

They are still not in CSS3 UI CR, reappearance is highly unlikely. Is there
another draft that is going to define these properties?

Comment 4

[Anne (:annevk)]

Resolving this INVALID since there is no working draft and this should probably
be done using contenteditable instead of using CSS.

Comment 5

[David Baron :dbaron: (⌚️UTC-4, no longer working on Mozilla)]

Wontfix perhaps, but not invalid, since there was once a WD.

Comment 6

[David Baron :dbaron: (⌚️UTC-4, no longer working on Mozilla)]

It might make sense to change things about this property.  However, I don't think an ancient WD is a *reason* to do so, so absent another reason I'm going to mark this as wontfix.