W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Property proxies / CSS setters

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:35:54 -0800
Message-ID: <4F342E2A.6010809@jumis.com>
To: Paul Bakaus <pbakaus@zynga.com>
CC: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>
Your approach also works for people who do CSS pre-processing.

The proxy concept gives a standard means to pre-process this particular 
set of CSS issue.
I could certainly see a shell script which takes the proxy as input, and 
outputs both JS and CSS to match it for older browsers.
There's still the setter issue with JS on implementations that don't 
support setters, but that's life.

For me, webkitTransform = mozTransform = msTransform = ... is no fun. 
But it's not the end of the world.


On 2/9/2012 12:07 PM, Paul Bakaus wrote:
> Actually, I don't think so. My approach makes sure that the good 
> promises of vendor prefixes are kept  if a feature breaks in a newer 
> browser because of syntax changes, for instance, and the removal of 
> the vendor prefix has simply been done through the proxy, it's crazy 
> easy to simply fix it in the client side css, at a single line in your 
> code.
> Von: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org 
> <mailto:robert@ocallahan.org>>
> Antworten an: "robert@ocallahan.org <mailto:robert@ocallahan.org>" 
> <robert@ocallahan.org <mailto:robert@ocallahan.org>>
> Datum: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 11:50:58 -0800
> An: Paul Bakaus <pbakaus@zynga.com <mailto:pbakaus@zynga.com>>
> Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com <mailto:smfr@me.com>>, "www-style@w3.org 
> <mailto:www-style@w3.org>" <www-style@w3.org 
> <mailto:www-style@w3.org>>, Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com 
> <mailto:leaverou@gmail.com>>
> Betreff: Re: Property proxies / CSS setters
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Paul Bakaus <pbakaus@zynga.com 
> <mailto:pbakaus@zynga.com>> wrote:
>     Happy with this solution, but I'm not sure everyone is.
> Then they won't be happy with your approach either, which achieves the 
> same thing in a more complicated way.
> Rob
> -- 
> "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is 
> not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will 
> forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we 
> claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is 
> not in us." [1 John 1:8-10]
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2012 20:36:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:11 UTC