Re: Tying CSSOM and CSS

Oh, I assumed that the distinction is needed because of the fact that we
have a cssom/ area.
If you think the whole information regarding CSSOM properties should only
be in the css/ area, that is also fine (though a little inaccurate), though
we would need CSSStyleDeclaration to draw these from the css/ area.

☆*PhistucK*



On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com> wrote:

> I was imagining that we'd just have the CSSOM information on the CSS
> property page, since the content unique to the CSSOM page would be
> vanishingly small.
>
> Janet, how did you approach this in MDN?
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 1:37 AM, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I propose that we would still have separate pages for the CSS and CSSOM
>> versions. They will simply share most of the content (the actual content
>> will reside at the CSS version).
>>
>> ☆*PhistucK*
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Phistuck, are you proposing having separate pages for the CSSOM property
>>> and the CSS property, with somewhat automatic linking between them? Or are
>>> you proposing just having CSSOM details on the CSS property pages?
>>>
>>> I think it would be great to automatically generate the CSSOM name based
>>> on the CSS Property name while allowing overrides for the odd cases (some
>>> of which you mention). However as far as I know there's no easy way to
>>> camelcase text in MediaWiki--perhaps there's an extension that others are
>>> aware of?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5 Dec 2012, at 09:01, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Every CSS property has its CSSOM counterpart.
>>>> > For example, float has cssFloat, font-weight has fontWeight.
>>>> >
>>>> > As far as I know, both of them share the same values.
>>>> > Therefor, we should make one draw from the other (CSSOM would draw
>>>> from CSS). If values are added or removed from the CSS property, the CSSOM
>>>> property should also be updated automatically.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> This sounds like a great idea that would save a lot of time in the long
>>>> run, if it were possible. What's another template between friends? ;-)
>>>>
>>>> > I guess we could do that by adding a field to the CSS property form,
>>>> that holds its CSSOM counterpart name.
>>>> > Can we populate it automatically according to the naming convention?
>>>> can we take the CSS property name (API_name, I guess) and automatically
>>>> convert it camelCase by default? Of course, the field should still be
>>>> editable in case some properties do not use this exact convention
>>>> (cssFloat, MozColumns)?
>>>> >
>>>> > Maybe the summary/overview or other sections should also be drawn.
>>>> Examples should not be drawn.
>>>> >
>>>> > Another idea -
>>>> > Completely remove the CSSOM property pages and make them redirect to
>>>> the CSS property page.
>>>> > (I am not in favor of this idea.)
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ☆PhistucK
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>