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
Rename CSS pseudo-class :picture-in-picture #181
Conversation
This doesn't make any sense. In this specification, those two elements are the same. In fact, adding this comment is more confusing than the original name, not less. |
Isn't this what we discussed @jernoble during the WG call? The idea is that |
That spec doesn't exist yet, so this problem you're trying to solve doesn't exist yet either. Therefore, this change is not necessary, and making it will cause more confusion, not less. Furthermore, it's not evident that even in the hypothetical future where a spec exists that allows arbitrary element to go into PiP that this tension between where this pseudo-class applies even exists, nor whether this is the best way to solve that tension. This is very much putting the cart before the horse. |
I'm not sure it's hypothetical. Picture-in-Picture, has two parts: where the elements used to be and where it's visible now. By simple trial and error, any web developer can figure out that As a side note, this name was copied from Fullscreen but the difference with the Fullscreen API is that the user doesn't usually see the original page with Fullscreen (until we allow fullscreening to a different screen). Though, it's worth pointing out that I think it may help the discussion to split the name change and the name discussion as two different topics: do we believe |
It's currently literally impossible to style the contents of the PiP window, purposefully. So there is no ambiguity in the name. Pages which try to style the contents of the PiP window will fail, regardless of the name.
No, it's self contradictory (both picture-in-picture and inline at the same time). "inline" is also a word that has completely different meaning in other areas of CSS. |
Would keeping the |
I don't think |
Maybe if we want to discuss names, we should try to think about how we would name something to style the window content if anything. |
gentle ping @jernoble |
As the |
As Discussed during the Media WG call on 12 May 2020, this PR renames CSS pseudo-class
:picture-in-picture
to:picture-in-picture-inline
@mounirlamouri @jernoble @tidoust
Fix: #172
Preview | Diff