W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > March 2017

Re: [csswg-drafts] [cssom] Doubt about resolved value of shorthands

From: Xidorn Quan via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 09:51:12 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-284673521-1488880271-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
I think the spec indicates that shorthands don't have resolved value.

Gecko generally doesn't serialize shorthands for declaration block returned from `getComputedStyle` (with several exceptions of shorthands which were longhands), but it seems others do (or at least sometimes do) serialization for normal shorthands in resolved value.

I'm not completely sure what should we do for this. I guess a reason against serializing shorthands in resolved value is that, it is hard to keep backward compatibility. When we extend a shorthand to cover more longhands, their serialized form may change, and anything relies on it may be broken.

This breakage may still happen when a longhand is converted to shorthand, but that happens relatively fewer times, and the result can be kept if the author doesn't touch the expanded longhands, so probably it can still be considered backward compatible.

GitHub Notification of comment by upsuper
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1041#issuecomment-284673521 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 7 March 2017 09:51:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:09 UTC