W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2008

Re: [cssom-view] New WD "CSSOM View Module"

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 01:32:33 +0100
To: "Garrett Smith" <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
Cc: Www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.t67k4jet64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:16:32 +0100, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>  
> The tests are CSS1Compat, but the spec seems to be based on quirks mode.

Well, it's not :-) Quirks mode has been tested as well though to see if we  
need different code paths for that. Maybe we do, but it seems that WebKit  
gets away with not doing that.

> CSSOM offsetXXX need to be removed  from the CSSOM spec.
> No browser implements the spec as written. The browsers are "locked
> in" - 100% compliant change among browsers is unlikely.

100% compliant implementations are always unlikely. Yet it's a goal of  
many specifications.

> Even if the browsers could change, the spec has a few serious flaws.

We can fix those.

>>  > What's needed is an automated test. I've already gotten started on
>>  > one, but I want to host it not on my site, but somewhere with a
>>  > repository so tests can be CRUD'd by multiple users.
>>  Maybe start a Google code project?
> I'm sensing some sarcasm in this, as if you read my blog and wanted to
> make a comment.

No sarcasm intended.

> [...] Does the w3c generally use Google Code? I have not seen this  
> before. I
> see that the demo pages that you've made are being hosted on w3c, not
> Google Code.

I didn't realize you wanted to make it a W3C project. The W3C does have  
dev.w3.org but that requires account set up and all. I'm not sure how easy  
that is for non-members. I was just giving you something to work with, as  
I don't represent the W3C.

> The spec has resulted in contrasting implementations of offsetXXX.

You mean we had interoperable implementations before the specification  
came out to be and after the specification was published implementations  
started to diverse? Given that the specification started out because of  
implementation differences that seems a weird statement to make.

>> I don't see why offsetParent needs to be the containing block.
> Here's why offsetParent needs to be a containing block:
> An offsetParent P of A needs to be a containing block in order to
> determine A's offsetXXX layout coordintes respective to it's
> containing block.

Layout coordinates are calculated with respect to the offsetParent, not  
the containing block. Although if most browsers indeed implement  
offsetParent as always being the containing block we should maybe go with  

> CSSOM prevents determining the coords of the BODY element.

Actually, you can determine them using the getBoundingClientRect() method.

> The browsers have different implementations - from each other and from
> the spec. Should all the browsers change? Won't that break existing
> scripts? Should the spec change? Would that be fair to any browser?

They should converge in one way or another.

> Or should CSSOM offsetXXX properties should be removed from the spec
> and replaced with something new?

Replacing them with something new doesn't solve the problem of them not  
being implemented in the same way.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2008 00:27:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:34 UTC