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

Re: [css-device-adapt][cssom] Missing VIEWPORT_RULE definition

From: Rune Lillesveen <rune@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 21:58:03 +0200
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.v25i21uh8isf1p@id-c1005.oslo.osa>
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 19:12:35 +0200, Sylvain Galineau  
<sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:

> I assume @viewport will introduce its own VIEWPORT_RULE type to the  
> CSSRule interface [1].

Yes. The CSSOM part is missing from the draft. I will add a section for  
that.

> At what stage does that happen i.e. when does a new rule type get  
> assigned in the CSSWG 0-1000 range?

I'd like to know that too. I didn't pay attention to this in the Opera  
implementation, so it's currently 11 (after NAMESPACE_RULE). Also, it's  
currently called VIEWPORT_RULE, not O_VIEWPORT_RULE.

I guess O_VIEWPORT_RULE and OCSSViewportRule be the correct names for  
@-o-viewport.

> Given that css-device-adapt is a WD, I assume implementations would  
> currently pick a value outside the range and expose a  
> VENDOR_VIEWPORT_RULE constant.

That looks like the right thing to do reading the CSSOM spec. I'll change  
our implementation.

> [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom/#the-cssrule-interface

Are these arbitrary numbers, or have they been discussed: "For example,  
the first value for Mozilla could be 0x08EC0001 and 0x09E8A001 could be  
the first for Opera.". We should agree on number ranges among the browser  
vendors so that we can start using them.

-- 
Rune Lillesveen
Layout Group Manager
Core Technology Department
Opera Software ASA
Received on Monday, 10 October 2011 19:58:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:45 GMT