W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2011

Re: [cssom] Unrecognized - request for more information

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:00:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CADC=+jfo986UyFf7i=X=wxTe=r6PZVe-eTF6Q1WagTp3f=Y6XQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, www-style@w3.org
That would go a long way IMO.

You could let through all of the dash-prefixed properties and not limit it
to web-* right?  If so, you could allow the method that accesses it to
provide a prefix filter.

This might be too much to ask, but I think it would be possible to create a
way for people who really did want to "experiment" as you are saying with
true innovation with a CSS-like grammar in a way that couldn't mix with
CSS... All that would be necessary would be to allow allow the parser
"parse" but not respect a file via a mime type pattern or something (say
like type="text/css-xxx").  Then could never overlap but people could take
advantage of a good / fast native parser.

This last approach, actually, could solve both problems fairly well and
without much change - it would just require people to keep the "new" stuff
in a separate sheet and use feature detection or something to determine
which ones to shim (not unlike today).

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> Regarding unknown things that look like rules, WebKit parses and keeps
> those things around and only filters for the recognized stuff later.
> This is done so our Inspector can usefully flag invalid values for the
> author.  So, it wouldn't be difficult for us to expose them.
> However, I wouldn't actually want to do so.  Allowing authors to
> innovate in property names and values means we'll have much greater
> compat risk when we introduce any new properties or values.  It's
> always possible for them to do so (for example, by XHRing the
> stylesheet and parsing it themselves), but keeping it slow, expensive,
> and difficult limits the spread of those methods.
> The idea of a web-* set of user-defined properties, though, seems
> totally fine.  That cordons off the potential damage into a space that
> we can easily avoid in the future.
> Similarly, I don't think we should expose things that don't look like
> rules either, for the same reason.
> ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 19:00:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:02 UTC