-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.7k
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
Add commandfor & command attributes to HTMLButtonElement #9841
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
45e4032
to
9579336
Compare
I realize this is also in the steps for getting the popover target element, but in both cases I'm wondering why its specified to return null if the node is in the disable state? Doing so, at least with
that state gets removed. That's unexpected, to have that state removed based on whether the button is disabled or not. And for invokertarget - if it is really is going to do more than just show/hide content - there are a lot of other states that should still be exposed, regarless of if the element is in the disabled state or not. edit: I can file a bug for disabled / popovertarget if necessary - i just wanted to get insight on this first, before I went and made that issue. cc @mfreed7 |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
7f0f9ea
to
834a8b1
Compare
See related spec PR whatwg/html#9841
Fwiw HTML requires a positive standards position or for chrome LGTMs on an intent to ship to be considered supportive. Saying that Mozilla have marked their position as positive so that's 1 implementor interested. I do wonder how this requirement works for a feature such as this which will require multiple PRs to add to the spec? |
I'm confused why this feature is being done as multiple PRs; it makes review a good deal harder. |
If it makes it easier to review I’m happy to put more into one PR. I figured it would be worthwhile splitting it into the core vs each elements behaviour as I imagine there will be more to discuss with each elements behaviour. |
Well, it'd make it easier for me, but I haven't signed up to review yet, so no need to make any changes until we get some more opinions :) Edited to add: the reason it makes it more difficult is that I don't think we want to accept the feature piecemeal. |
As per openui/open-ui#900 (comment) this'll need updating to only fire the event when the action is custom (has a hypen) or is recognised and valid (correct action name on correct element). TLDR is that this will allow us to add default actions in future without conflicting with user land code. |
In openui/open-ui#952 (comment) we resolved that "Invokers v1 will be popover and dialog invoking." This should help keep this initial PR as small as possible while also avoid the issue of reviewing stuff piecemeal. So #9875 can be merged into this along with dialog related changes. |
Chromium is explicitly supportive of this proposal, so I believe it has two implementer support (including Mozilla). Is this PR in a state that it can get a review? I'm happy to do so, if it'd help. |
I'd be happy to get reviews, I think this is in a good position for that. |
Done - I added a first set of comments. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice. This is getting close now. I'd really appreciate it if someone else could do one detailed read through as after this many takes I'm probably missing things. Maybe @domenic or @domfarolino?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Took a brief scan before going OOO for Thanksgiving, and mostly only came up with editorial things.
source
Outdated
</ol> | ||
</li> | ||
|
||
<li><p>Otherwise, run the <span>popover target attribute activation behavior</span> given |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wonder if we could elevate this to handle this case first, and early return. That way all of the entire invoker-is-null steps could be dedented by one, and we can remove a whole level of nesting in this algorithm. That seems just a bit more readable (just a suggestion though).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This was an intentional editorial choice and an intentional choice in the code to keep these steps last to emphasise their order of precedence. Happy to change though.
<li><p>If <var>continue</var> is false, then return.</p></li> | ||
|
||
<li><p>If <var>command</var> is in the <span | ||
data-x="attr-button-command-custom-state">Custom</span> state, then return.</p></li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think it matters much, but what if the result of firing the event changed the button's command state to "Custom"? In that case, this algorithm would not early-return here because we're looking at a snapshot of <var>command</var>
. I assume that's fine, and maybe even desirable, but I just want to make sure that's what we expect and ask if this definitely matches what implementations would do.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah I believe it was deemed quite early on that scripting shouldn't change the type of gesture halfway through. I think there could be some interesting use cases for it (such as just-in-time determining if you want something as show-modal
vs show-popover
), but I am not convinced they're practically worthwhile in the face of potential problematic use cases.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Wait, command is the attribute, so it's not a snapshot. If you want a snapshot you need to do something else.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh I'd need attribute value
? And presumably also attribute state
or similar, so that we can capture and continue to test the state?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
With the prose above I'm assuming that command holds the attribute value in which case it's grabbed early. It's only the attribute that's live (and which most of the existing infrastructure assumes is used).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah. I read #9841 (comment) as you saying the current prose grabs the live version of the attribute state/value, not a snapshot.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The current prose grabs the attribute, which is live by definition. If you grab the value instead you'll have to change how you inspect state, which is what the above wording is for.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Okay I've pushed up something I think works.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this looks good!
Thanks for the review @domfarolino - I wonder if you'd be interested in another sweep given the changes to the if statements? |
<li><p>If <var>continue</var> is false, then return.</p></li> | ||
|
||
<li><p>If <var>command</var> is in the <span | ||
data-x="attr-button-command-custom-state">Custom</span> state, then return.</p></li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this looks good!
This adds the
commandfor
&command
attributes and a "command" event using theCommandEvent
interface.Button activation checks if the button has a "commandfor" target and if so performs invoker command behaviour depending on
command
and the target element.(See WHATWG Working Mode: Changes for more details.)
/dom.html ( diff )
/form-elements.html ( diff )
/index.html ( diff )
/indices.html ( diff )
/interaction.html ( diff )
/interactive-elements.html ( diff )
/webappapis.html ( diff )