- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 14:24:59 +0800
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+ex_+z4xHNhFUn5bE3NJX-gN5Ob4V8uNVrRNLLBvqx4iw@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 8/23/12 9:57 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > >> On 8/23/12 6:33 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: >> >>> My current thinking is to *only* define getter/setter and have it cover >>> the existing CSS2Properties etc rather than define new partial >>> interfaces ad infinitum. >>> >> >> As I said in my reply to Tab, I'm somewhat opposed to that. >> >> Note also that if you do it that way page script won't be able to hook >> the getters and setters for CSS properties, which is also not that great. >> > > And another problem: the change would not be backwards-compatible. If you > moved the existing attributes to a "getter" setup and a web page had this: > > Object.prototype.display = 5; > > then suddenly .style.display would stop working, whereas right now it > works in that situation in all browsers. > > I, personally, am not willing to take web compat risks like that in Gecko, > especially when I don't see much of an upside. how about a hybrid approach? e.g., define the current set of CSS2.1 properties found in CSS2Properties as individual attributes, and use g/s for other properties; btw, i also notice that some browsers have a practice of leaving undefined those CSS2Properties they don't support semantically (e.g., FF doesn't define any of the aural props as IDL attributes on CSSStyleDeclaration [1]) [1] http://hg.csswg.org/test/raw-file/tip/contributors/gadams/incoming/cssom/cssstyledeclaration-instance-named-properties-in-css2x-aural.xht
Received on Friday, 24 August 2012 06:36:30 UTC