- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:38:51 -0700
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: Franรงois REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Saturday 2012-08-25 14:01 +0800, Glenn Adams wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 12:11 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> > Glenn Adams wrote:
> > > My preference is to retain the explicit property attributes for
> > > the existing, legacy usage coming from CSS2Properties and use
> > > generic prose on g/s to handle new properties beyond
> > > CSS2Properties (as well as variables). I realize this creates an
> > > asymmetry of a sort but we need to both serve legacy needs (aka
> > > CSS2Properties) and serve future extensibility needs (which I
> > > believe drives towards using g/s).
> >
> > I'm opposed to having an observable distinction between how existing
> > CSS properties are exposed and how new ones are exposed. This seems
> > likely to interfere with techniques that authors use to detect
> > property support in browsers. (I'm fine with variable properties
> > being different since their names aren't known in advance.)
> >
>
> So, if I read between the lines, your position is (or is consistent with):
>
> (1) use an implied partial interface CSSStyleDeclaration { DOMString foo; }
> for each property foo ..., where foo is either existing standard property
> or to-be-defined future standardized property or propriety (prefixed)
> property ...
> (2) use generic getter/setter for and only for variable properties
That sounds reasonable to me; I'm not all that familiar with the
exact mechanics.
-David
--
๐ L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ ๐
๐ข Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ ๐
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2012 22:39:16 UTC