W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-houdini@w3.org > October 2015

Re: Typed CSSOM

From: Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 01:19:44 +0000
Message-ID: <CAGTfzwS725+j-j+fy16QsbuZf7==fbKwTKQTQkv9yLN7ZFe23A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, "public-houdini@w3.org" <public-houdini@w3.org>
Hi all,

I've written up an initial ED for the typed OM here:
https://drafts.css-houdini.org/css-typed-om/. There's a lot of detail
missing, but I'll gradually add to it over the next couple of weeks.

Comments/complaints/issues/flames welcome.

Cheers,
    -Shane

On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 11:48 AM Shane Stephens <shans@google.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 11:19 AM Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/9/15, 6:05 PM, "Shane Stephens" <shans@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> >(2) Numbers
>> >
>> >
>> >Number properties like z-index or opacity should have a very simple
>> wrapping:
>> >
>> >
>> >interface NumberValue : StyleValue {
>> >  double value;
>> >}
>> >
>> >
>> >An open question: where and when does validation happen? What happens if
>> I try to set an out-of-range number to opacity? Will this be consistent
>> across all properties?
>> >
>> >
>> >(3) Lengths
>> >
>> >
>> >Usually, lengths are simple single-unit values (e.g. 50px or 30em).
>> However, it is possible for calc values to be used instead.
>>
>> Numbers and integers can use calc() as well, which will be important for
>> the SpecifiedStylePropertyMap.
>>
>
> Yup, good point. I think there's some simplification that goes on in calc
> expressions between the text value they are initialized with and the typed
> representation (e.g. calc(5% + 50px + 5%) will be represented as {percent:
> 10, px: 50}). I'm not sure if this means that number calc expressions get
> removed completely before arriving at the typed representation.
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >Ideally, I'd like to either start incorporating some of this stuff in
>> the CSS Properties and Values specification, or alternatively begin a new
>> ED (CSSOM Level 2?) WDYT?
>>
>> Did we decide on whether this would be a separate spec? I’m using this
>> deprecated email thing because I’m not sure if I should raise an issue on
>> props and values, or wait for a new CSSOM draft to appear.
>>
>
> I *think* we decided separate spec. At any rate, it doesn't matter -
> having all of the issues in one repo makes it trivial to relabel them
> later. So file away!
>
> Cheers,
>     -Shane
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Alan
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2015 01:20:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 October 2015 01:20:28 UTC