- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:07:04 +0200
- To: "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:34:48 +0200, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: > Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> I'm having trouble following the double negative. Could you explain >> what you mean? > > Yeah, sorry that typically french double negative. > > I am only saying that I'm not sure it's useful to standardize > offset* properties at all. Apparently, there are very strong > differences between implementations that make designing a > standard from that ground difficult. I agree that this is (and was) a painful process. Having these attributes standardized helps with this: 1. It gives existing browsers something to converge on so QA does not endlessly have to reverse engineer other browsers. 2. Once that happens it will provide a more consistent authoring experience. 3. It makes it easier for new browsers to enter the market as they will not have to reverse engineer these attributes from other browsers. They can simply implement them against a specification. > On another note, the new getBoundingClientRect() and getClientRects() > seem more promising. > So I wonder if the CSS OM View spec should not specify those and > "deprecated" the non-standard offset*. We could mark them "obsolete" for authors, maybe. That way authors may not use them, but browsers still need to implement them as described. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2008 12:07:16 UTC