- From: Sebastian Zartner via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 23:52:40 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
While IDL is good in regard of requiring to be updated, not all elements have an IDL associated to them, like e.g. the `<ruby>` element. Therefore, I'd vote for introducing a similar registry for markup, as that would not only allow CSS to check whether something is supported but also have other benefits. E.g. having such a registry would allow DevTools to add autocompletion for tag and attribute names without having to maintain them by themselves. And it also makes markup feature detection generally easier or even possible, which is useful to authors and presumably also for WPT. Though if such a registry is not possible for some reason and we have to base the checks on IDL, the syntax should made more CSSy and also _not_ include the abbreviation "IDL". It could actually still be mapped to what @fantasai and I proposed earlier, because all IDLs follow a specific naming syntax. The names have the type as prefix, followed by their name, followed by the suffix "Element". And the IDLs also define the attributes. So you could internally translate `html(input[switch])` to `HTMLInputElement.prototype.switch` or `svg(clipPath)` to `SVGClipPathElement`. But again, it would be weird if you _can_ test for `html(details)` but _not_ for `html(summary)` just because there's no `HTMLSummaryElement` interface for it. Sebastian -- GitHub Notification of comment by SebastianZ Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9746#issuecomment-1868135840 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 22 December 2023 23:52:43 UTC