W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2012

Re: [css3-conditional] navigator.supportsCSS rather than window.supportsCSS

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:04:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDCrhYrSLm0+p7hckFyeSPdTC98Cd-rqS2sLLWbAoo_DQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>
Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> However, I'm not sure what the problem is in the first place.  Nested
>> document have their own "window" object, so they'll have their own
>> "CSS" object as well.  It can return whatever answer is appropriate
>> for that document's mode.
>
> This still feels wrong from a software design perspective. I'm not
> asking if CSS supports this feature, I'm asking if /this document/
> supports this CSS feature.

While that's a nice argument from theoretical purity,
"document.supportsCSS" is way longer than "CSS.supports", while not
buying us anything. Worse for authors cancels out marginally better
for theoretical purity.

> You also create a cyclical relationship between the CSS object and
> document. CSS needs to account for the document state to say what is
> supported, and document needs to consult the CSS object to decide
> what's allowed while parsing. (Not really, but conceptually this is
> what's happening).

This is a concept wholly invented in your head.  It does not reflect
reality in any way.  The "CSS" object is just a namespacing object to
avoid the verbosity that's required when you put things on the global
object.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 20:05:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:58 GMT