[whatwg] Comments on <dialog>

[Ian Hickson]

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013, Brian Blakely wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> > 
> > I've added a rule to the spec that says that viewports have to be 
> > pannable so you can see all of a dialog, but I don't know how feasible 
> > that really is.
> 
> I could see implementations using shadow <div>s to satisfy this It might 
> be beneficial to even codify kind of element as ::modal, representing a 
> modal layer acting as an ancestor for both the ::backdrop and <dialog>.

Not really sure how this would work. Can you elaborate?


> > > > > 3. When the modal dialog's height changes, either due to CSS or 
> > > > > content changes, the vertical position of the dialog should 
> > > > > change (unless the height exceeds the viewport height).
> > > >
> > > > That's an interesting idea, but I'm not convinced it's the right 
> > > > answer. Having the dialog move up and down when stuff is added at 
> > > > the bottom would be quite weird. You can always implement this 
> > > > manually from script.
> > >
> > > To go back to hacky and rather difficult-to-maintain JS techniques 
> > > for something so simple seems antithetical to the intention of 
> > > <dialog> to me. Modern modal implementations don't require that.
> >
> > My point isn't that we shouldn't offer the feature because it is 
> > already possible. My point is that this feature is actively bad. I'm 
> > saying I don't think it's good UI for the dialog position to change 
> > when it increases in height.
> 
> It looks like Blink's implementation will recenter the modal when 
> show/showModal are called.

That's per spec, yes. The suggestion above was regarding when the dialog 
changes size while it's already visible, I believe.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'