- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 15:53:26 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
[Tab Atkins Jr.:] > > The element() function currently allows an out-of-document element to be > selected and (in some cases) rendered, through a mechanism that is host- > language dependent. There is an informative example of this using the > CSSElementMap API I proposed to be added to HTML for this purpose. > > There's been a relatively large amount of discussion and disagreement over > multiple aspects of this: > > 1. Some people don't like having id selectors refer to out-of-document > elements, as it's inconsistent with how the same selector would work in > other contexts. > > 2. The behavior of this for SVG fragments is underdefined currently, > because CSS in out-of-document trees is underdefined. > > 3. The existence of the CSSElementMap in HTML is contested. Some suggest > that it should be part of CSSOM instead, or have a different name, or have > slightly different behavior (such as relying on the element's own @id > attribute, rather than using the key in the map as an alternative id. > > 4. Some people think the current ability is too limited to really be > useful, and we should wait and combine it with the ability to reference > elements from external documents as well. This would allow things like > making a paint-server gallery in an SVG file and then referencing it in > your CSS; right now you'd have to insert the SVG into every page, either > as direct markup or with script. > > My proposal is to drop all references to this ability for now, and resolve > these issues either in Images 4 or another spec like CSSOM. > I'd remove all references to out-of-document elements from the spec. > This still leaves in useful abilities, like the ability to use a non- > rendered element; it would just require putting the element into the > document and giving it display:none. > > This also lets us avoid the handful of issues around this subject recorded > in <http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css3-images>. > > Thoughts? > I support this.
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 15:54:08 UTC