- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:37:55 +0100
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Le 25/02/2013 09:17, Daniel Glazman a écrit : > On 24/02/13 19:21, Simon Sapin wrote: >> Le 24/02/2013 18:24, Daniel Glazman a écrit : >>> Sorry, I have an extra one: what's the OM for the new @page >>> rule with the extra nested at-rules? What is the OM for the >>> margin boxes at-rules? Without that, the whole thing is not >>> editable easily and requires textual manipulation of stylesheets. >> >> (Moving to www-style.) >> >> We had an issue about this on Tracker for css3-page, but I think it >> really belongs in CSSOM which already defines a CSSPageRule interface. I >> move the bug to the CSSOM bugzilla component: >> >> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20983 >> >> As described there, my suggestion is to add a .cssRules attribute (that >> would be similar to that of CSSMediaRule) in addition to the existing >> .style attribute that contains declarations. > > Ok. But I would like us to make progress here. We should not release > css3-page without having at least something in cssom for a CSSPageRule > able to deal with what's in css3-page. If the solution (separate cssRules and style attributes) sound good to you, I could propose a patch if that help. Not preserving the relative order of inner at-rules with respect to declarations is okay for @page, but will it be for any future situation where we mix at-rules and declarations? Or should we have a single list of mixed at-rules and declarations? -- Simon Sapin
Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 08:38:19 UTC