W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2008

Re: [cssom-view] small update

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:59:56 -0500
Message-ID: <4800179C.3080502@mit.edu>
To: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
CC: Www-style <www-style@w3.org>

Garrett Smith wrote:
> Even if offsetTop were reverse engineered accurately, which it isn't,
> it would still have problems.

Yes.

> Does the abstract need a rewrite?

To be honest, the abstract should be the last part written, imo.  And even then, 
it will at best imperfectly capture what's going on.  That's the nature of absracts.

> 1) clientLeft/Top - is fine in a RTL world with only top/left
> positioning where pixels are rounded.

This is the same as offsetTop.  It needs to be specified for UA interop, but 
it's pretty poor as authoring APIs go.

> 2) no contentWidth or analagous property -
> 3) offsetTop/Parent is broken by design - can't reliably determine the
> distance between 2 arbitrary elements

I think the getBoundClientRect/getClientRects APIs cover all these issues, no?

> 5) unclear on whether a CSS Pixel will include decimal precision

Probably implementation-dependent, for what it's worth.  I would assume that 
anything that's |float| in the IDL will include whatever accuracy the UA can 
provide.  In that case of Gecko, say, that means it'll first be rounded to the 
nearest 1/60 of a CSS pixel and then rounded to the nearest floating-point 
number expressible on the architecture the browser is running on.  That sort of 
thing.

This does raise an interesting question.  The offset* properties are declared as 
floats in the IDL in the spec.  I don't think that's compatible with 
implementations, and worse yet it's not really compatible with content...

> Screen -
> These properties do not seem to have anything to do with the CSSOM abstract.

I guess I pretty much expect the abstract to have nothing to do with the meat of 
things....

> Breaking all this down, rehashing it -- is time and energy consuming.
> ...."

I can see that.  Ideally, the above points would have made it into the relevant 
issues list.

-Boris

P.S.  Good to see we're back to actual technical issues here.
Received on Saturday, 12 April 2008 02:00:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:05 GMT