- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 20:25:11 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:59:06 +0200, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 4/25/13 8:51 AM, Simon Pieters wrote: >> Fixed (modulo https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21827 ). >> >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/b4e2a9a9114c > > Welcome to the hell that is using IDL arrays. You at least need to > define in prose which of the three totally different kinds of IDL arrays > you're returning, because they all look identical in the IDL. Once > that's done it'll be possible to evaluate whether we have the behavior > we want... :( (Thanks, I'll look at this later.) >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/378779e5e3bb > > That's really really bad. Incredibly bad. Other specs don't have this > problem; why does this one? :( Because this spec has a home-grown build system that Glenn wrote, and it has bugs. I'd like to get rid of it since it keeps getting in my way (and it doesn't make editing easier for me). Also see https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21828 > Can we put this note in the IDL itself somehow? No. >> Does anyone have an opinion about changing the other list types? >> StyleSheetList, CSSRuleList, MediaList? > > Are we 100% sure that no one is using .item() on any of those? No. Are people using item() on document.styleSheetSets? -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2013 18:25:45 UTC