- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 12:06:06 +0200
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 3:44 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > I'm prepping the Values and Units draft for CR, and it > occurred to me it might be useful to have you review > this issue: > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016Mar/0298.html > which was resolved here: > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016May/0209.html > and resulted in this wording: > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016Jun/0029.html > > Please let me know if you have any comments substantively > or editorially. :) That looks alright. I probably prefer some evolution of B. At some point CSS really needs to start thinking in terms of an object model and a syntax. And the syntax just feeds the object model, upon which everything else operates. So you wouldn't refer to 'url()' when serializing, but rather a CSS URL value object. And that object has some kind of internal slot (the local url flag), which we can also expose API-wise perhaps, etc. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 22 July 2016 10:06:32 UTC