- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 10:41:30 +0200
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 18:57:12 +0200, François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote: >> So this property would point to the element for element.style but be >> null >> for cssrule.style et al? > > Yes. So that either parentElement or parentRule have a non-null value. > > > >> I'm having a bit of difficulty reasoning around your use case since it's >> about polyfilling. For instance, getting flow-from implemented in >> browsers >> would remove the need for parentElement in your case. > > (1) there will always be a need to polyfill something on the web > platform, and more generally to expose new functions to the style > elements. Yeah. But it's not a very compelling use case that is being presented, in my opinion. > (2) the whole point of the css object model is... to expose the css > object model. why exposing parentRule but not parentElement? it doesn't > really make sense to me. > > (3) beside polyfilling use-cases, what could you use the "parentRule" > property for? did that prevent this property from existing? I don't know what the use case is for parentRule. There's also http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom/#dom-stylesheet-ownernode . But that's by itself is not a good reason to add something else like it. New features need to justify themselves on their own merit. I would like one or more of the following things demonstrated before I put the requested feature in the spec: * a more compelling use case that this feature addresses. * other developers working around the lack of this feature. * implementation interest from one or more browser vendors for this feature. Thanks -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2013 08:36:07 UTC