On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 12:11 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > > Glenn Adams wrote: > > My preference is to retain the explicit property attributes for > > the existing, legacy usage coming from CSS2Properties and use > > generic prose on g/s to handle new properties beyond > > CSS2Properties (as well as variables). I realize this creates an > > asymmetry of a sort but we need to both serve legacy needs (aka > > CSS2Properties) and serve future extensibility needs (which I > > believe drives towards using g/s). > > I'm opposed to having an observable distinction between how existing > CSS properties are exposed and how new ones are exposed. This seems > likely to interfere with techniques that authors use to detect > property support in browsers. (I'm fine with variable properties > being different since their names aren't known in advance.) > So, if I read between the lines, your position is (or is consistent with): (1) use an implied partial interface CSSStyleDeclaration { DOMString foo; } for each property foo ..., where foo is either existing standard property or to-be-defined future standardized property or propriety (prefixed) property ... (2) use generic getter/setter for and only for variable propertiesReceived on Saturday, 25 August 2012 06:02:38 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:58 GMT