Re: [cssom] Defining getComputedStyle

On Thursday 2010-02-11 17:41 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:33:29 +0100, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> >On 2/11/10 10:02 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> >>These properties are:
> >>
> >>* top
> >>* right
> >>* bottom
> >>* left
> >>* text-indent
> >>* max-height
> >>* min-height
> >>* max-width
> >>* min-width
> >
> >Do we have any data on how often getComputedStyle on these
> >properties is used?
> 
> I don't. All I have is that browsers do not really agree. I could be
> convinced to make these "exceptions" too. I do not really feel
> strongly, though less exceptions seemed better.

I agree that in general having fewer exceptions is better.  In this
case, the path to having fewer exceptions means making larger
changes (i.e., changing it for all elements rather than just
display:none or inside-display:none elements) from what
DOM-Level-2-Style said (which was unimplementable for the
display:none case).

> >>Also it seems that overflow is not treated as a shorthand property.
> >
> >It's not a shorthand in CSS 2.1.
> 
> Well, CSS doesn't have versions and most browsers have implemented
> overflow-x and overflow-y. I guess either they all act independently
> or overflow is just not considered a shorthand as far as the
> getComputedStyle API is concerned.

I think we need to move towards making shorthands "just work" so
that there's no noticeable affect if a property changes from being a
shorthand to a non-shorthand property, unless the value specified is
one that can't be specified in the original (now shorthand) form.

-David

-- 
L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/