- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:41:22 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thursday 2013-01-31 18:34 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:25 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> > I'd actually rather have separate methods or (probably preferably)
> > getters for each sort of value we'd want to return (the set is
> > pretty small) than have string arguments for "specified",
> > "computed", etc.
> >
> > For example, maybe something like:
> > element.specifiedStyle.color
> > element.computedStyle.color
> > element.usedStyle.color
> > element.pseudoStyle("::before").specifiedStyle.color
>
> Hm, that seems quite nice. Are you okay with the actual property
> accessors being lazy, so you don't necessarily have to do a lot of
> value computation up-front?
I think I would object to them being other than lazy.
> For the last one, this could give us an excuse to finally reify
> pseudo-elements as DOM constructs, for the return value of your
> pseudoStyle() function (though I'd call it something else).
Hmmm. That scares me a bit; I hadn't intended that.
-David
--
𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂
𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 02:41:46 UTC