W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2013

Re: [cssom][css-cascade] Access to specified or cascaded values in OM?

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 21:51:54 +0200
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.w1pyssqjidj3kv@simons-macbook-pro.local>
On Wed, 03 Jul 2013 21:46:31 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:30 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>  
>> wrote:
>>> One further issue is what
>>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom/#getstyleutils should specify access
>>> to.
>>>
>>> Do authors want access to cascaded values (sometimes empty, and with
>>> 'initial' and 'inherit' as they are) or specified values (with
>>> 'initial' and 'inherit' resolved and any empty values replaced with
>>> the inherited or initial value)?  I don't recall the use cases here
>>> to recall which is useful (one, both, or neither).
>>
>> I've posted a call for opinions on my blog: http://www.xanthir.com/b4Qi0
>
> I got a pretty decent number of quality comments on my blog post, and
> they were unanimous - they'd prefer what the Cascade draft now calls
> "cascaded style", where initial/inherit still show up, and if nothing
> set a given property on the element, it returns null.  It seems to be
> more useful for polyfilling purposes (for example, it would let a
> library tell the difference between a custom property being set on the
> element and it just inheriting a value from an ancestor).

Thanks, updated the spec.

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/4c1cca709e91
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/34d07b09df32

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Monday, 12 August 2013 19:47:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:33 UTC