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

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

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 14:01:49 +0800
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+cb8Yb33OrxinOgyq57zcO244rFxoMAoJVWnXY1HcoM5Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: Fran├žois REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
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 properties
Received 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