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

Re: [cssom] .style on CSSFontFaceRule and CSSPageRule should probably not be CSSStyleDeclarations as that interface is currently defined

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:11:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBijBNyzPgWCGiGN-nMwHKC8GEJNDsBLpUSY+ZCAv=Eiw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>> > Alternatively, we could freeze the set of
>> > named properties (e.g., to only some or all of what was defined in
>> > CSS2Properties), and require other properties to be accessed via
>> > getPropertyValue etc.
>>
>> Oh god no.  That's a horrible interface.  Everyone in the world just
>> uses el.style.foo to access properties, and that needs to continue
>> working as we add new things.
>
> I'm just generating ideas here. It depends what we want to consider
> canonical legacy behavior (that we wish to propagate forward) versus legacy
> behavior we support only for backwards compatibility. I don't have a strong
> value judgement either way at this point on this issue.

Sure.  Consider my statement as *strong* support for the named
property thing as the canonical legacy behavior that we wish to
propagate forward. ^_^

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 22:12:24 GMT

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