- From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 11:16:21 +0100
- To: "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "'www-style list'" <www-style@w3.org>
± I believe Glenn brought up a related issue, which is that it would be difficult ± to tell in the OM between a property set to nothing and one not set at all. ± This can be avoided by using the new "var" property on CSSStyleDeclaration, ± as only valid variables show up there. (You can use " 'foo' in style.var " to test ± it.) This is the intended method to interact with variables anyway, as it's ± more convenient, so we can probably ignore this issue. I'm in favor of a semantic where setting a property to an empty value undeclares the property, mimicking the element.style behavior which exposes an empty string for undeclared properties (and where setting a property to an empty string remove the property declaration). So, my proposal would be to accept the empty string value as a way to reset the custom property to a unset state: #selector { my-property: 1; } #selector > * { my-property:; /* unset the property */ } qS("#selector > *").computedStyle.myProperty // empty string qS("#selector > *").computedStyle.my.property // undefined If we do not go that way, it becomes very difficult to undeclare a custom property. Do we really want people to rely on [[Delete]] semantics to undeclare a property?
Received on Friday, 8 February 2013 10:16:57 UTC