- From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 14:23:07 -0800
- To: robert@ocallahan.org
- Cc: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:58 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> > wrote: > > > > > > * Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > > > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom-view/ > > > > > > > > > > > There are many terms that you use, like content width, context box > with, > > > associated CSS layout box, and current rendering mode, that you never > > > properly introduce. Links to their definitions would be very useful. > > > > > That is a very good point, Bjoern, and one I noticed, too. > > > > The danger is that these props appear to be analagous to properties > > that have been the source of pain for web developers. Particularly the > > currentStyle.hasLayout . > > > > There is nothing like that here. Your speculation is baseless, please > actually read the spec. > I'm not speculating anything, ROb. Now, when I mention currentStyle.hasLayout is a source of pain for developers. I mean exactly that. Apparently you're not using the hasLayout in your development. Maybe you misunderstood me. I did not say that there was a currentStyle.hasLayout property. Maybe based on your misunderstanding, you got mad, then tried to act nice by saying "please." Finally, if there is a particluar part of the spec you want to mention, then mention it. Go ahead and question what I wrote, Rob, but do not make false accusations based on your assumption about what I think. Garrett > > Rob
Received on Sunday, 9 March 2008 22:23:16 UTC