W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2016

Re: computedStyle of cloneNode

From: Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 23:35:13 +0000
Message-ID: <CAGTfzwQBhfBz_1inufbFVP7ppNNtSeh6UHd_COy=n0Oe4Tr8BA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:08 PM Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Shane Stephens <shans@google.com> wrote:
> > (1) several of us have now stated that computed style for detached nodes
> > doesn't really make sense. Rune may disagree with this stance but I'm not
> > sure?
> It's resolved, not computed, for what it's worth. Pretty sure it was
> specified this way because content relies on it being this way. Maybe
> that's no longer true?

If there's no computed style, there's no resolved style either :) Probably
better to talk about computed style though, so we capture the correct
behavior in the new typed OM as well.

I'm skeptical that anything relies on this in practice as there's a total
lack of interoperability between implementations.

> > (2) if this were a general rule then we'd have an answer for the initial
> > question (what to do with computed style of a cloned node) - as the clone
> > would not be in-document, it wouldn't have a computed style.
> Agreed, cloning should have no material effect one way or another here.
> --
> https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2016 23:42:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:59 UTC