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

RE: [CSSOM] some feedback on serialization

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:08:03 +0000
To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "Anne van Kesteren (annevk@opera.com)" <annevk@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F017829323D98@TK5EX14MBXC296.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Paid as in past tense. We didn't even have a spec for CSSOM
serializations until the past couple of years and no one, to
my knowledge, deliberately used syntax definition to output
property values before. Today, we have 'some heed' paid by 
one browser. One partial implementation does not interop make,
hence my concern that it remains more of an editor's shortcut 
than a feature from other implementors' point of view. (Though
our doing it does prove some of these changes can be made
without breaking the world).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Manthos
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 10:48 AM
> To: Sylvain Galineau; Anne van Kesteren (annevk@opera.com); www-
> style@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [CSSOM] some feedback on serialization
> 
> *almost* "never paid attention"
> There was directed effort in document mode 9 in IE9 (and IE10) to pay some
> heed to this rule.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sylvain Galineau
> > Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 9:08 AM
> > To: Brian Manthos; Anne van Kesteren (annevk@opera.com); www-
> > style@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: [CSSOM] some feedback on serialization
> >
> >
> > [Brian Manthos:]
> > > 6.6.2
> > > # Where multiple CSS component values can appear in any order #
> > without
> > > changing the meaning of the value (typically represented # by a
> > double bar
> > > || in the value syntax), use the order as given in # the syntax.
> > >
> > > Many (all?) CSS3 modules appear to be paying no attention to this
> > > expectation at all.
> >
> > This one is controversial since no editor writes the syntax definition
> > as a serialization format. Given the alternative between using this
> > and defining what the serialization format is for every single CSS
> > property, however, I understand why Anne would prefer the former :)
> > But since browsers never paid attention to syntax definitions to
> > define their serialization, and since syntax definitions were never
> > written with serialization in mind (afaik) it's no  surprise neither
> > other modules or implementations are up to this. I think of this
> > clause as a placeholder, really.
Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 18:08:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:43 GMT