W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2011

Re: [CSSOM] Searching/Navigating stylesheets

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:28:14 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTimKDoYT1cW=qE5xepRdYwQ_qowjKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 4/13/11 1:35 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Boris Zbarsky<bzbarsky@mit.edu>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/11/11 4:55 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, compat's always an issue.  I'd prefer trying for the (imo)
>>>> better API first, though, and only giving up and switching to the
>>>> version on window when we learn that there's a problem.
>>>
>>> If browsers ship every 6 weeks, then we probably learn that there is a
>>> problem after two releases have shipped...
>>
>> And then we can fix it 6 weeks later, rather than a year or two later. ^_^
>
> From what I've seen so far, we then say "but we've shipped it in two
> releases already; we can't change it anymore."

Sigh, yeah.  Keep fighting the good fight there, I think we're just
being stupid.


>>> We can, sure.  But if all the use cases for one are also use cases for
>>> the
>>> other, then we should ask ourselves whether we need a web API for the
>>> former
>>> if the latter won't be doable with web APIs anyway.
>>
>> So you're arguing that disabling rulesets is possibly reasonable for a
>> web API, but disabling individual properties is probably only useful
>> for full-on editors which will need specialized non-web-facing APIs
>> anyway, so can just put the functionality in the latter APIs?
>
> Yes.

Okay, that's reasonable.  I'll see if I can come up with use-cases for
per-property disabling beyond editors.


>> For example, assume you're defining some sort of ruleset nesting, like
>> this:
>
> Oh, I see what you were talking about.  OK.
>
> My concern was actually about things that don't look like property-value
> pairs now (in the sense that the part before ':' is not an ident) but might
> end up as property-value pairs in the future if we extend CSS.

That's a fair concern - I assume you're referring to things like, say,
"background-image[1]" which has been proposed for targetting pieces of
a list-valued property?

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2011 18:29:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:39 GMT