- From: andruud via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2025 07:28:40 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> I presume we'd want to represent the body as well, right? As a .style/.childRules pair, like style rules do? It's there, it's just not easily visible: we get `childRules` by inheriting from `CSSGroupingRule`. (Should probably be made more easily visible.) > .style There is intentionally no `style` attribute on `CSSFunctionRule`. The "leading" block of declarations (if any) is just wrapped in a `CSSFunctionDeclarations` rule and put in `childRules`. This is consistent with other grouping rules affected by nested declarations, i.e. nested grouping rules, and even `@scope` top-level as of https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10389. I think it's more consistent this way, vs. treating the leading block as special. `CSSFunctionDeclarations` has a style attribute, though. :-) > (The rest looks good on a quick skim.) Like briefly discussed elsewhere, should we be using a `CSSOMString?` return value for attributes that possibly have no value? (And return `null` instead of `""` when there is no value?) -- GitHub Notification of comment by andruud Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/11832#issuecomment-2705726494 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 7 March 2025 07:28:41 UTC