- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:30:38 -0700
- To: David Smith <catfish.man@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
David Smith wrote: > [skiped] > In a number of cases, the keywords in question refer to persistent > attributes of a conversation such as the url of an icon representing > the person you're talking to, or their name, rather than per-message > attributes like the exact text sent. When these persistent attributes > change, Adium has to traverse the whole DOM looking for places where > they were used and updating to the new value, which is definitely less > than ideal. CSS variables would make this completely trivial, as well > as significantly faster. Instead of something like <div > class="message"><img > src="%%userIcon%%">%%displayName%%%%message%%</div> we would have <div > class="message %%senderID%%">%%message%%</div> and use content() and > background-image with variables to insert the persistent name and > icon. Updating when the name or icon changed would then be a simple > matter of setting a new value via the CSSOM. > [skiped] So you have dynamically generated content like this: <div class="message %%senderID%%">....</div> While adding new sender you need to add single rule like: div.that-sender-id { background-image:url(that-sender-avatar.gif); ... } by using CSSOM. You do not need CSS variables for that until I missed something in your task definition ... -- Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com > > David Smith > > On Oct 1, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: > >> >> Why would people need "CSS variables" at all? >> >> We've got a lot of discussion around them but I am failing to >> see the forest behind those trees. >> >> Could anyone clearly explain why "CSS variables" there at all: >> 1) What problems they are trying to solve, etc.? >> 2) Why they are variables and not constants? >> 3) Are there any requests from community for exactly variables? >> >> Thanks in advance. >> >> -- >> Andrew Fedoniouk. >> >> http://terrainformatica.com >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2008 23:31:25 UTC