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