W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2010

Re: [CSSOM] offsetWidth, offsetLeft issues

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:36:32 +0200
To: "Ojan Vafai" <ojan@chromium.org>, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
Cc: "Erik Arvidsson" <arv@chromium.org>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.vhdea4tu64w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local>
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:03:24 +0200, Robert O'Callahan  
<robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Robert O'Callahan  
>> <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>  
>>> wrote:
>>>> The width and height of getBoundingClientRect is always the same as
>>>> offsetWidth and offsetHeight.
>>>
>>> I don't really care about this one. offsetWidth and offsetHeight are
>>> really bad legacy features.
>>
>> No argument there. But we should at least make them as sane as possible,
>> no? In the case of tables with captions, it makes more sense to include  
>> the caption. Given that IE already does this, it seems likely to  
>> maximize
>> compatibility, or at least not make it worse.
>
> It seems to me that right now the CSSOM spec is a little vague on this
> matter. On the offset* properties it talks about "the border-edge of  
> element A", when it really needs to specify a particular CSS box (or  
> union of CSS
> boxes).

I changed it to talk about boxes. It simply picks the first CSS layout box  
associated with the element as that is what needs to happen for inline  
boxes. I could add an exception for <table> elements I suppose but do we  
really want to do that?


> I don't really mind if the spec changes so that offsetWidth and  
> offsetHeight
> match the size of getBoundingClientRect. That would make them include the
> table caption. However, I can't promise that we'll change Gecko to  
> match. It seems almost any change to our offset* implementation produces  
> regressions in Web content, perhaps because there is browser-sniffing  
> code that makes
> assumptions about what we currently do. I'd rather just give up on  
> offset* and forget about them and concentrate on making
> getClientRects/getBoundingClientRect useful and interoperable across
> browsers.

Since we are keeping the features around we should strive to reach  
interoperability in my opinion. This will require changes and hopefully  
experimental deployment can further help guide the specification.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 09:37:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:30 GMT