- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:01:50 +0100
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "CSS WG" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:05:05 +0100, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Thursday 2010-02-11 17:41 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> 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). I'm not sure I understand. For most properties we can simply use the computed style definition of CSS 2.1. There's only a limited amount of properties that needs a more special definition and one property that always uses the used value (line-height). >> >>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. Opera already does this. Works for me! -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 12 February 2010 08:02:30 UTC