- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:40:55 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Andy Davies <dajdavies@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Ilya Grigorik <ilya@igvita.com>
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > As Boris has explained, it's not performance issues, but rather author > expectations. The average author expects a CSSOM to exist for all the > stylesheets in the page, and when the set of matched MQs changes, for > the styles to change at the same time, not a network-roundtrip later. Does the average author really expect anything about CSSOM? I would guess that the average author doesn't use CSSOM beyond the sugaring for the style attribute and maybe getComputedStyle() and even those hidden behind a JavaScript library. The use cases for fiddling with the style rules of external sheets in the OM (beyond the immediate style attribute sugaring) don't seem that common. To me, optimizing the availability of inapplicable style sheet data in the OM over what gets transferred seems totally backwards compared to what the mythical average author wants. > If any browser *did* defer them indefinitely by default, they'd get > compat bugs. This I can believe. So could the problem be solved by adding an attribute on <link> that turns off the ability to reach the OM of that stylesheet from scripts (at least unless some async access request API is used first) and then making browsers not load stylesheets until they are applicable (i.e. making e.g. printing wait for additional stylesheets to be fetched)? -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 13:41:22 UTC