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

Re: [css3-fonts][cssom] proposal for revised definition of CSSFontFaceRule

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:40:08 +0800
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+eteO12OaXbK29AjZf4C4p3+sPmBay=6=qxANbg2NQ7iw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> On 9/18/12 9:18 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
>> I agree with Boris that this is orthogonal to whether we have a named
>> getter/setter (the get() and set() functions in your example) or the
>> getDescriptor/setDescriptor functions.  These all seem unnecessary.
>>
>
> At the very least, having both get() and getDescriptor() is compeletely
> unneccessary, since they're just two names for the same thing.


Not as I had originally intended it. I had originally intended
getDescriptor() to mirror getPropertyValue() behavior, which operates on
CSS Property Names, like 'font-family', and not their ES Property Name
counterpart, like 'fontFamily'. That is, I had intended the use of
getDescriptor('unicode-range') and get('unicodeRange'), and neither
getDescriptor('unicodeRange') nor get('unicode-range').

So that is why I asked if both of these (distinct) property name domains
should be supported. If we only want to support the camel-cased, IDL
attribute name variants of the CSS source code descriptor names, then we
don't need {get/set}Descriptor.
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 00:40:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:00 GMT