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

Re: [CSSOM] CSSRule.NAMESPACE_RULE

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:38:02 +0100
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.u9gwpowt64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:21:17 +0100, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>  
wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:14:48 +0100, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 2010, at 10:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:01:12 +0100, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:
>>>> WebKit already uses 8 and 9 for animation keyframe-related rules:
>>>>
>>>>        const unsigned short WEBKIT_KEYFRAMES_RULE = 8;
>>>>        const unsigned short WEBKIT_KEYFRAME_RULE = 9;
>>>
>>> The specification already states that private extensions should be  
>>> outside the range 0-1000. That range is reserved for the CSS WG.
>>
>> At what point during the standardization process should we switch from  
>> considering these as private extensions to values that are approved by  
>> the CSS WG?
>
> Probably at the point where you rename them from WEBKIT_ to something  
> else? For prefixed properties this usually happens at the CR phase. I'm  
> happy with settling constants before then if it is at least somewhat  
> clear the proposal is going to make it.

FWIW, since it is pretty clear animation is going to happen I'm happy to  
make NAMESPACE_RULE 10 instead. I really couldn't care less. We could also  
make it 2, but it seems some people are less happy with that at this  
point. (Though @charset really never should have been allocated a constant  
and corresponding object...)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 12 March 2010 18:38:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:25 GMT