W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2013

Re: [css-cascade] Naming "value of a declaration", renaming "specified value"

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:04:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBoObQzRdh3PPVeY0iU1T6xwtS2tJVVd4AuGk09rFOXLg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:14 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> On Monday 2013-06-24 15:45 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> If we don't have a publicly-exposed term, then every single spec that
>> wants to define computed values has to handle the cases where there is
>> no value, or the value is a global keyword.  That's not acceptable,
>
> OK -- that's a good reason to keep a term.
>
> I think we should consider more carefully which terms we want to
> expose to the CSSOM, though, rather than exposing everything that
> there happens to be a term for.

So, the question here is whether it makes more sense to expose (using
the new terms) the "result of the cascade" (might not exist, contains
global keywords), or the "cascaded value" (always exists, global
keywords are gone).  This probably requires asking some smart people
in the authoring community - I think I'm too far gone to have a
reasonable opinion on this.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2013 00:05:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:12 UTC