W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2014

Re: ::Parts of cats and hats everywhere, slashed by shadow

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 16:24:39 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAa8V9OfZ3Sk4KGo15gSGwH4rF8fMFdvhS_GRXcfz+4Pg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "<www-style@w3.org>" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> wrote:
> I wonder if there is a possible intermediate step between today’s proposal and one that supports a Type 2 model, namely enabling the author to lock down his component i.e. we leave to later the mechanism by which the components’ public interface is defined but, in the meantime, allow either fully public or fully private components as a first step.  We’d still have to agree on which is the right default - and this may be hard enough to warrant making an attempt at a Type 2 definition - but could this be a workable compromise?

As Boris has said, what does "fully private" mean?  The *definition*
of Type 2 isn't clear, because it doesn't have a unifying ethos, and
so all the various places where you might want to hide things have to
be found and how they work determined.

So no, we can't just define a switch.  We have to take the time (a
not-insigificant amount of time, most likely) to figure out exactly
what the "hidden, closed" option on such a switch would do, and in the
meantime we'd be held up from shipping the already-defined "hidden,
open" option.

Received on Monday, 10 February 2014 00:25:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:19 UTC