W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2010


From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:14:48 -0800
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-id: <EB68BD96-DEC6-49D7-B944-77B4C10469B7@me.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
On Mar 12, 2010, at 10:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:01:12 +0100, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:
>> WebKit already uses 8 and 9 for animation keyframe-related rules:
>>        const unsigned short WEBKIT_KEYFRAMES_RULE = 8;
>>        const unsigned short WEBKIT_KEYFRAME_RULE = 9;
> The specification already states that private extensions should be outside the range 0-1000. That range is reserved for the CSS WG.

At what point during the standardization process should we switch from considering these as private extensions to values that are approved by the CSS WG?

> WebKit also has:
>>        const unsigned short UNKNOWN_RULE = 0;
> But is the object associated with this actually implemented and working? Last I checked it wasn't.

We have a CSSUnknownRule object, but I haven't tested it.

>> We're playing a game of whack-a-mole here. We really need partition out numeric ranges somehow.
> The specification contains some suggestions for private extension ranges.

It seems that the real problem here is that we use raw numeric values for CSSRulel types. If rule types were identified by a string label, or if we could force authors to always use the constant values on CSSRule (maybe by some trick like making the type opaque, if IDL allows that), then we wouldn't have this problem.

Received on Friday, 12 March 2010 18:15:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:43 UTC