- 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