[openable] Does defaultopen as a separate attribute make sense?
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
needs-triage
openable
- Dominant language
- MDX
- Stars
- 4.5k
- Forks
- 226
- Avg merge
- 2d 22h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 4
Description
Currently the openable explainer uses a defaultopen attribute.
This was based on the previous proposal for initially open popovers. Naming aside does it make sense to be a separate attribute here, or should an alternative approach be taken?
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with the linked openable explainer and review how the defaultopen attribute is currently described, along with the previous proposal for initially open popovers. Done means reaching a documented decision on whether defaultopen should remain separate or be replaced by an alternative approach.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- html
- Domain
- frontend, web-dev
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100