- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:06:32 -0700
- To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Mark Brown <mark@mercurylang.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: > On Jun 22, 2016, at 07:12, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 19:22:52 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I'd strongly prefer not having the OM be gratuitiously different from >>> the syntax. That's just confusing for everyone, and makes it more >>> confusing to work with, not less - how do you add an @else rule to the >>> document via the OM? Can you just append it to the stylesheet and >>> magic happens, or do you need to get that final conditional rule, >>> chase its .else pointers until you hit a null, then set it to your new >>> rule? >> >> Yeah, I suppose it would indeed be confusing. > > I don't know. @else isn't an autonomous construct, so I don't feel strongly about supporting the ability to "just append it to the stylesheet". An @else is part of a conditional rule chain, and I don't find it particularly weird to need to walk the chain to be able to append something to it. It's very confusing when two ways of looking at a document present an entirely different "shape" to the document, unless the two ways are *very intentionally* doing different types of things. This is not the case here; the literal syntax and the CSSOM purposely present essentially the same thing in the same way, and so we shouldn't add any gratuitous differences. If an @else is a sibling rule of something in the literal syntax, it should be a sibling rule in the OM. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2016 19:07:21 UTC