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

RE: [cssom] Defining getComputedStyle

From: Richard Fink <rfink@readableweb.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:18:48 -0500
To: "'Anne van Kesteren'" <annevk@opera.com>, "'CSS WG'" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001b01caa50e$18d5f240$4a81d6c0$@com>
>I am not proposing any changes to getComputedStyle
>for 'width' it's very easy to get three different results testing three browsers.

I see. getComputedStyle has always mystified me, as well. But in defining it, you change it.
Once defined, hopefully, at least one of three browsers giving different results will be conformant, the others not.

>the current definition no longer works due to CSS 2.1 changing definitions

Will check it out. Haven't read it for a very long while.

You still seem to be on the right track.

rich
-----Original Message-----
From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk@opera.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 2:51 PM
To: rfink@readableweb.com; 'CSS WG'
Subject: Re: [cssom] Defining getComputedStyle

On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:46:45 +0100, Richard Fink <rfink@readableweb.com>  
wrote:
>> Does this sound like a good direction?
>
> FWIW: Yes indeed. Very much. I don't remember, but I might have used the  
> term "appliedStyle" as a synonym for what I think you are proposing with  
> the term "resolved values".
> [...] I think "resolved values" would be highly useful.

To be clear, I am not proposing any changes to getComputedStyle. I simply  
want to define it because a) the current definition no longer works due to  
CSS 2.1 changing definitions and b) browsers do different things. E.g. for  
'width' it's very easy to get three different results testing three  
browsers.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2010 20:19:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:24 GMT