> Regarding the text bubbles problem [...], you can use `text-wrap: balance | pretty` to achieve the same result.
No, neither solves the problem. And even if `balance` did work, it's not a good substitute because you don't usually want your line lengths to all be the same length.
What is stated in the article about Pocket Casts (a podcast app) is false. The timeline of events was basically:
1. Pocket Casts exists as a paid app for years (the cost is paid upfront).
2. Pocket Casts goes freemium. All current features are made entirely free. A new cloud file feature is introduced, requiring a monthly/yearly subscription called Pocket Casts Plus.
3. In response to backlash, users who paid upfront are given a lifetime of Plus access.
I get that this could be considered part of a broader trend, but in this case, paid users never lost access to the features they paid for.
> how many segregation categories to you create before it becomes all meaningless
Considering the fact that most women's leagues barely get any mainstream attention as is, I think any further fragmentation of sports isn't going to be sustainable.
Also, ignoring the commercial and entertainment aspect of sports, it's just really hard to organize local leagues if they only serve a small portion of the population. Like, even in a large metropolitan area, how many transgender people are there? Of those, how many are interested in a particular sport? Of those, how many are interested enough to form a club?
The problem arises because Trans people in the west (ironically) insist on a binary definition.
Here in Pakistan, trans people have fought for (and gained) the right to NOT be part of the binary system; so here we have 'M' for men, 'W' for women and 'X' for trans people. (Homosexuality is still illegal, btw)
Or to make it more explicit, the tagline 'trans women are women' would be considered transphobic here, because women is considered to be synonymous with cis women, but they are trans, they earnt the right for that X in their sex column.
It's not like we are a bastion of trans rights here, so the issue of bathrooms ( they are required to have their own, iirc, but I doubt compliance is prevalent) and sports (haven't heard anything about trans people in sports) hasn't arisen yet.
I feel trans people in the west will have to come to the same realisation that their trans counterparts in the east have; the binary definition is not fit for purpose.
I think both of these points are two sides of the same coin. There's an athletic advantage that most transgender women will have over most cisgender women, but there's also an athletic disadvantage that most trans women will have compared to cis men.
i.e., unless something fundamentally changes about how leagues are divided, there's going to be perceived unfairness in sports.
As long as things are unchanged, I think the real conversation boils down to who we prioritize: cis women or trans women.
It depends on the laws of your country, but here in Canada, you can't slaughter cows on your farm. They have to be transported, often long distances, to a slaughterhouse. Slaughterhouses, and the metal box that brings them there, aren't very nice places for a cow.
The only reason why you regard JavaScript as “fundamental” is that it’s built into the browser. Sure, you can draw that line, but at least acknowledge that there’s many places to draw the line.
I’d rather make comparative statements, like “JavaScript is more fundamental than React,” which is obviously true. And then we can all just find the level of abstraction that works for us, instead of fighting over what technology is “fundamental.”
I agree and I think it’s a nice explanation that fundamentality (characteristics upon which everything depends or would not be possible) is contextual.
Web Components are a great way to implement things that the browser should have already implemented, like accordions, combo boxes, and date pickers that don’t suck. It’s been a pleasure to use them in a mostly static, content-heavy Astro site.
But beyond that, they’re not really usable without a framework that can deal with state and reactivity across a whole application. And that’s fine! They fill a good niche. But just because the browser provides an API doesn’t mean it should be used whenever possible.
Accordions: just use `<details name="accordion-name">` and style it however you like. No need for JS or Web Components any more for an accordion.
Combo Boxes and Date Pickers: CSS Form Control Styling Level 1 [1] will be a massive game changer. `appearance: base` will make it easier to style every part of a browser's form input with just CSS as they start with fewer opinions on how it should be styled (less trying to be platform-specific, more web platform generic) and have more CSS selectors for their component parts. Yet they will still have all the accessibility of native form controls. Really hoping that draft moves forward this year.
I didn’t know about the `name` attribute on `<details>`, thanks for pointing that out!
Stylable form controls are definitely a step in the right direction. It really should not be taking this long though. In the meantime, developers have been building broken, half-assed, inaccessible inputs just to satisfy aesthetic requirements.
No, neither solves the problem. And even if `balance` did work, it's not a good substitute because you don't usually want your line lengths to all be the same length.
See also, related CSS Working Group issue: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/191
reply