- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:15:01 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 8/21/12 2:21 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> Actually, that seems about right. Having a common Declaration >> interface for the things that use that seems useful, and then >> subclassing the interface for each individual use lets you specialize >> the list of exposed properties. > > If we want a common Declaration interface, should it have > getPropertyPriority on it? Should it have a "cssText"? Should it even talk > about "property"? Should it have a setProperty that takes a priority > argument? > > I'm OK with the answer being "yes" to all of those, for backwards compat > reasons, but it seems like having to define the property priority stuff > behavior for various consumers like font-face is a bit annoying. Eh, the priority stuff can just no-op by default, and have a real meaning on the style='' one. However, if it's possible to move the style attribute toward returning a sub-interface, then we should be able to just move all of those to the sub-interface as well, and define priority-less versions for the super-interface, since most extensions will be at-rules with descriptors that have no concept of priority. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 19:15:50 UTC