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

Re: [css3-fonts][cssom] proposal for revised definition of CSSFontFaceRule

From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 05:12:29 -0700 (PDT)
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <109187530.1055982.1347970349487.JavaMail.root@mozilla.com>
Glenn Adams wrote:

> (1) If we expect this new (descriptor collection) interface to be
> reused by different rule types, then it would be best to define in
> the baseline CSSOM spec directly;


> (2) If we are going to make this change from the existing
> CSSFontFaceRule to a new and different definition, then we should
> define the new CSSFontFaceRule in CSS3 Fonts to keep it more closely
> tracking the other font related interfaces defined there; also, we
> should be careful to define the new version so that UAs may continue
> to support the older, DOM-2 CSS definition without member name
> collisions;


> (3) I would suggest the new descriptor interface to be defined as follows:
> interface CSSDescriptors {
>   readonly attribute unsigned long length;
>   DOMString item(unsigned long index);
>   DOMString getDescriptor(DOMString descriptorName);
>   void setDescriptor(DOMString descriptorName, DOMString descriptorValue);
>   getter DOMString get(DOMString name);
>   setter void set(DOMString name, DOMString value);
>   stringifier; // useful to define explicitly (in prose) for supporting an outer rule.cssText
> }
> and that a new intermediate rule interface type be defined:
> interface CSSRuleWithDescriptors : CSSRule {
>   readonly attribute CSSDescriptors descriptors;
> }
> and that CSSFontFaceRule be:
> interface CSSFontFaceRule : CSSRuleWithDescriptors {
>   getter DOMString get(DOMString name);
>   setter void set(DOMString name, DOMString value);
> }

This seems okay to some degree, I just wonder if it's not a little bit of 
overkill.  Why the need for getter/setter *and* getDescriptor/setDescriptor?
That almost seems java-esque.


Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 12:13:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:21 UTC