- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:11:35 -0700
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: >> > Alternatively, we could freeze the set of >> > named properties (e.g., to only some or all of what was defined in >> > CSS2Properties), and require other properties to be accessed via >> > getPropertyValue etc. >> >> Oh god no. That's a horrible interface. Everyone in the world just >> uses el.style.foo to access properties, and that needs to continue >> working as we add new things. > > I'm just generating ideas here. It depends what we want to consider > canonical legacy behavior (that we wish to propagate forward) versus legacy > behavior we support only for backwards compatibility. I don't have a strong > value judgement either way at this point on this issue. Sure. Consider my statement as *strong* support for the named property thing as the canonical legacy behavior that we wish to propagate forward. ^_^ ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 22:12:24 UTC