Re: DOMString-like objects for the CSSOM

Mark's right, this is not backward compatible, so why even try?  
Backward compatibility is pretty much like pregnancy: you are or you  
aren't.

Better to make new APIs that do not interfere with legacy ones.

/be

On Feb 19, 2010, at 8:20 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>  
> wrote:
> On 2/19/10 11:06 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> Why make your new object be String-like rather than simply  
> containing a
> string as a member?
>
> I think the reasoning is tat people use |foo.style.top| as a string  
> right now.
>
> Is it a string right now? If it is...
>
>  So if we want to allow doing |foo.style.top.px = 200|
>
> Why would you want that? I suggest that once you appreciate the  
> costs of that desire, you will no longer want that.
>
>
> and at the same time allow people to treat foo.style.top as a  
> string, then it needs to be string-like in some sense.
>
> I suspect that just having it toString to the string it is right now  
> is not sufficient for web compatibility.
>
>
> Why use is-a rather than has-a?
>
> Because we're trying to extend a legacy API which currently uses  
> strings, not designing in a vacuum.
>
> -Boris
>
>
>
> -- 
>     Cheers,
>     --MarkM