- From: Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 03:47:23 +1100
- To: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>
- Cc: Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com>, public-webplatform@w3.org, Janet Swisher <jswisher@mozilla.com>
- Message-ID: <CAPwaZpWBLMkHVtzhP45FWaP4rjxfC4xCZkyfOw9-Paof7aCx7Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 7:38 PM, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > Where does the CSSStyleDeclaration live? Is it a single page or multiple pages? > > ☆*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 >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Received on Monday, 10 December 2012 16:48:12 UTC