- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:27:14 -0700
- To: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> So, based on the discussions on this thread, what does the group feel >> about defining a new global named "CSS", which we use to hang new >> css-related things off of that may not be worth polluting the global >> object with (or that would require a cumbersome name if they were put >> on the global). >> > > I don't like this idea. There's nothing like this in the platform yet, and > the difference between CSS.PixelValue and CSSPixelValue is one letter. That's not what I suggested. With a safe global that can't be author-polluted, we can do *significantly* smaller names without risking collisions. I keep mentioning "CSS.px" as the name we'd probably end up with for these kinds of things, which is significantly better. > Either way, supports() really needs to be a document level feature anyway > because browsers support different CSS properties in standards vs quirks > mode (IE...), or even in extensions or apps vs web pages (ex -moz-binding). Standards vs quirks doesn't change the recognized properties, does it? I wasn't aware of that being a quirks-mode difference. Do extensions get their own script global, separate from the web page? If not, I know they at least get some special objects for their special capabilities. We can give them a special version of this if we want to let them recognize their special properties. > document.supportsCSS(property, value) is what you want. It's really not. :/ ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2012 18:28:02 UTC