On 8/23/13 5:01 PM, "François REMY" <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote: >> If it's so obviously useful and undebatable then why isn't it already >> there? Especially if, as you noted, browsers already have the info >> internally and the cost is minimal? Something here is not adding up. >>When >> reality contradicts theory it is usually wiser to question the theory... > >My theory is that unlike browsers that use a CSSStyleAttrDelcation, a >CSSComputedStyleDeclaration & a CSSStyleRuleDeclaration interfaces, the >initial authors of the CSSOM reused one single class that was >specifically crafted for the latter (hence parentRule) and therefore >missed the parentElement/isReadonly/... stuff because they didn't make >sense in the context where the interface had been defined in first place, >and nobody revisited the interface after that. Er, OK, not at all what I was asking but I think we've run out our quota of silly for the week.Received on Saturday, 24 August 2013 00:27:05 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:31 UTC