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 21:16:37 +0800
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+dDEk8aYRWV8oe7Q-EMPZ1Ha0mQHnSPVj1oBMXRVgEp7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
Cc: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Sebastian Zartner <
sebastianzartner@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> interface CSSDescriptors {
>>   readonly attribute unsigned long length;
>>   DOMString item(unsigned long index);
>>   getter DOMString(DOMString name);
>>   setter void(DOMString name, DOMString value);
>>   stringifier;
>> }
>>
>> interface CSSRuleWithDescriptors : CSSRule {
>>   readonly attribute CSSDescriptors descriptors;
>> }
>>
>> interface CSSFontFaceRule : CSSRuleWithDescriptors {
>>   getter DOMString(DOMString name);
>>   setter void(DOMString name, DOMString value);
>> }
>>
>
> Just to be clear here: This means people will be able to access the
> descriptors in their property name notation as well as in camelCase
> notation via [], right? And item(index) resp. [index] return the property
> name notation (e.g. 'unicode-range') like CSSStyleDeclarations do?
>

sorry, i meant to remove item(index); but this brings up the question of
whether enumeration of properties, e.g., via "for (propertyName in
rule.descriptors)" is sufficient or not

Tab/Boris, what do you think?
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 13:17:29 GMT

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