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

Fwd: [cssom-view] small update

From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 12:36:29 -0800
Message-ID: <c9e12660803061236r49e25cb8rba65b6c00182257@mail.gmail.com>
To: Www-style <www-style@w3.org>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: [cssom-view] small update
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>


On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 4:22 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
 >
 >  Hi,
 >
 >  I made a few small changes in how the APIs are defined (clearer
 >  definitions, I think) and added AbstractView from DOM Level 2 Views. I
 >  also renamed WindowView to ScreenView and defined it to be for visual
 >  media only. I also moved offset*, scroll*, and client* attributes to their
 >  own interface that will only function for objects implementing
 >  HTMLElement. As roc mentioned on this list they're not that useful now we
 >  have getClientRects() and getBoundingClientRect() so we might as well
 >  restrict them for now.
 >
 >  I also fixed small mistakes as reported on a blog entry by Peter-Paul Koch:
 >
 >    http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2008/02/the_cssom_view.html
 >
 >  The updated editor's draft can be found here:
 >
 >    http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom-view/
 >
 >  I think it's ready for Last Call.

 Not without more tests its not.

 The way you've spec'd offset* doesn't really reflect what browsers do.

 You seem to be in denial about this, or are unwilling to investigate
 the matter more. You also seem to want to avoid a lot of questions and
 don't want to test. I'm not sure what the reluctance is. What is the
 problem, Anne?




 >
 >  Kind regards,
 >
 >
 >  --
 >  Anne van Kesteren
 >  <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
 >  <http://www.opera.com/>
 >
 >
Received on Thursday, 6 March 2008 20:36:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:02 GMT