- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:56:35 -0700
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: >> In this case, the function would just be called "supports()", hung off >> of CSS. This is a single character longer than "supportsCSS()", which >> is currently the shortest clear name we've come up with (and thus very >> attractive to me). >> >> The main benefit of starting this now is that we'll have the precedent >> already established in the future, so that we can, for example, hang >> all the new CSS value constructors off of it (I'd much rather type >> "new CSS.px()" than "new CSSPixelComponentValue(5)". > > I'm not sure we want to wait for nested interfaces to do this. At present, > WebIDL requires a binding at the global object for all interfaces declared > with Constructor or NamedConstructor extended attribute. We could leave that > in place and, in addition, *explicitly* define a binding on the CSS > interface object, e.g., "CSS.px is set to the value obtained by evaluating > CSSPixelComponentValue.prototype.constructor". Yes, that's what I was trying to write. I was probably unclear. ^_^ ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2012 16:57:22 UTC