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

Re: [css-variables] How to spec the OM for vars?

From: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:03:59 +0200
Message-ID: <869039855F954EB5AA8A1EBFE620E7A7@FREMYD2>
To: "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, <www-style@w3.org>

From: Glenn Adams 
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 2:50 PM
To: François REMY 
Cc: Boris Zbarsky ; Tab Atkins Jr. ; www-style@w3.org 
Subject: Re: [css-variables] How to spec the OM for vars?

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 6:08 PM, François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr> wrote:

  I don’t see the point of doing this, as this will make the code slower and show no real benefit.

speculation

That it will make the code slower is not a speculation, it’s a fact: generic getters are not optimizable while direct property access are, and that it shows no real benefit holds true as long as you come with a real benefit that I can agree with.

  Implied partial interface is more than enough.

i don't like it

Hostestly, I don’t care. I don’t like red; do you care?


  Also, don’t forget that the DOM also need to be accessed by non-javascript engines such as WYSIWIG ediors and browser wrappers (PhoneGap...) which use native C++ (or .NET or something else). Using a g/s interface would be a pain for them while using std properties is much easier.

it's up to those platforms to optimize a WebIDL binding

Those platforms are not dynamic scripting languages and they don’t support dynamic getters (well, .NET Dynamic Runtime does but it’s only for scripting purposes). You can’t make them support dynamic getters except by updating the language itself which is not going to happen.
Received on Friday, 24 August 2012 13:04:22 GMT

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