- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 12:45:22 +0200
- To: sam <samuelp@iinet.net.au>
- Cc: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>, "Lars Gunther" <gunther@keryx.se>
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 12:32:59 +0200, sam <samuelp@iinet.net.au> wrote: > On 04/05/2010 05:08 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> Personally I think moving away from specifying style information in >> script to just specifying class name changes is actually an >> improvement. That way the style information stays neatly separated from >> the script and can be changed by designers who might not be involved >> with the scripting layer of the site at all. That way it can also be >> more easily overridden by end users. > > Agreed with that. Being able to specify styles as declaration blocks in > CSS as a class and reference/apply them in JS via className is good (but > maybe class name is not the right mechanism to expose declaration blocks > to JS enviroment). There is clear separation of function. But CSS > duplicating functionality inherent in the DOM event model willy nilly is > bad and should be avoided IMHO. Maybe CSS should just duplicate all the > DOM events exactly?? CSS does not expose events. It exposes state. That is quite a different thing. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 5 April 2010 10:46:12 UTC