Re: Tying CSSOM and CSS

Ah, okay.

Yeah, that's more of the main CSSOM object (I think); just because it
exists doesn't imply we need a separate article for each specific CSS
property's cssom name (especially since they're often obvious).


On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:13 AM, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com> wrote:

> A single page under css/cssom -
>
> http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/css/cssom/CSSStyleDeclaration/CSSStyleDeclaration
>
> ☆*PhistucK*
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 7:38 PM, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, I assumed that the distinction is needed because of the fact that we
>>> have a cssom/ area.
>>> If you think the whole information regarding CSSOM properties should
>>> only be in the css/ area, that is also fine (though a little inaccurate),
>>> though we would need CSSStyleDeclaration to draw these from the css/
>>> area.
>>>
>>
>> Where does the CSSStyleDeclaration live? Is it a single page or multiple
>> pages?
>>
>>>
>>> ☆*PhistucK*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was imagining that we'd just have the CSSOM information on the CSS
>>>> property page, since the content unique to the CSSOM page would be
>>>> vanishingly small.
>>>>
>>>> Janet, how did you approach this in MDN?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 1:37 AM, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I propose that we would still have separate pages for the CSS and
>>>>> CSSOM versions. They will simply share most of the content (the actual
>>>>> content will reside at the CSS version).
>>>>>
>>>>> ☆*PhistucK*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Phistuck, are you proposing having separate pages for the CSSOM
>>>>>> property and the CSS property, with somewhat automatic linking between
>>>>>> them? Or are you proposing just having CSSOM details on the CSS property
>>>>>> pages?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it would be great to automatically generate the CSSOM name
>>>>>> based on the CSS Property name while allowing overrides for the odd cases
>>>>>> (some of which you mention). However as far as I know there's no easy way
>>>>>> to camelcase text in MediaWiki--perhaps there's an extension that others
>>>>>> are aware of?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5 Dec 2012, at 09:01, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Every CSS property has its CSSOM counterpart.
>>>>>>> > For example, float has cssFloat, font-weight has fontWeight.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > As far as I know, both of them share the same values.
>>>>>>> > Therefor, we should make one draw from the other (CSSOM would draw
>>>>>>> from CSS). If values are added or removed from the CSS property, the CSSOM
>>>>>>> property should also be updated automatically.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This sounds like a great idea that would save a lot of time in the
>>>>>>> long run, if it were possible. What's another template between friends? ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > I guess we could do that by adding a field to the CSS property
>>>>>>> form, that holds its CSSOM counterpart name.
>>>>>>> > Can we populate it automatically according to the naming
>>>>>>> convention? can we take the CSS property name (API_name, I guess) and
>>>>>>> automatically convert it camelCase by default? Of course, the field should
>>>>>>> still be editable in case some properties do not use this exact convention
>>>>>>> (cssFloat, MozColumns)?
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Maybe the summary/overview or other sections should also be drawn.
>>>>>>> Examples should not be drawn.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Another idea -
>>>>>>> > Completely remove the CSSOM property pages and make them redirect
>>>>>>> to the CSS property page.
>>>>>>> > (I am not in favor of this idea.)
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > ☆PhistucK
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>