Re: [cssom] Identifying types and shorthand and unsupported properties



On 7/14/13 9:15 AM, "François REMY" <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote:

>± >>>It could be possible to instruct the browser to keep some properties
>± >>>even if he does not understand them, as an opt-in:
>± >>>
>± >>> @polyfill background-3d-distance {
>± >>> cascade: true;
>± >>> inherit: false;
>± >>> initial: 0px
>± >>> }
>± >>>
>± >>>That would however only work at a style-sheet level (if you have
>± >>>multiple stylesheets, you need to specify this in each one of them,
>± >>>before any declaration).
>± >>>
>± >>>
>± >>>Thoughts?
>± >>
>± >> Well, if this rule can be at the end of all your stylesheets then
>± >> you'd better keep all the properties if you don't want to reparse...
>± >
>± >Okay, let's add some @coffee at-rule at the end of the reply and let
>± >Sylvain reparse the mail :-)
>± >
>± >hint: "at the stylesheet level" ... "before any declaration"
>± 
>± Doh :) I think we're getting way ahead of ourselves though...
>
>The current IE behavior is nice but the fact it doesn't support
>inheritance nor correct default values can be annoying. I like the idea
>of being able to tell the browser how to handle the property; we could
>probably even go as far as giving the polyfilled property a type so the
>browser could animate it using smooth transitions {and ignore invalid
>declarations}.

There is a difference between building features with extensibility in
mind, or adding features that can also be used as an extensibility
mechanism (like Variables) and adding features that only benefit
extensions. For the latter, syntax and detailed behavior is the easier
part. Making the case in favor of CSS allowing 'plug-ins' is the harder
bit.

Received on Sunday, 14 July 2013 17:29:51 UTC