On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Alan Stearns <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/26/12 2:36 PM, "Adam Barth" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Alexandru Chiculita <[email protected]> > >wrote: > > > >I don't see any advantage in having the interface anyway, so why don't we > >just it let be a separate object and add two helper methods instead. I > >can only imagine that other browsers might have the same issue anyway. > > > >document.getRegionForElement(element) > >-> where element can be both Element and CSSPseudoElement > >-> this may return null in case of no region being associated, so there's > >no need for instanceof tricks anymore. > > > >region.element > >-> that can return either Element or CSSPseudoElement > > > >BTW, is there any base class shared across Element and CSSPseudoElement? > > > > > > > >Greping for CSSPseudoElement in WebCore appears to return zero results. > > > > > >Discussing this issue with Sam in #webkit, we wondered whether another > >solution is to not implement the CSSOM for Regions. Is there are strong > >use case for having this CSSOM in the first place? > > > > > >Adam > > CSSPseudoElement is something I want to bring up soon in the CSS WG. > Future extensions like this as to what can become a CSS Region is the > motivation for separating out the Region interface. Whether there's a > shared base class that makes sense is still to be determined. > > There are strong use cases for the object model for CSS Regions. Adobe has > projects we'd like to base on CSS Regions, and script access will be > vital for these efforts. We've also been building prototypes of other CSS > extensions using the CSS Regions OM. I understand that there are projects > based on IE10's version of CSS Regions where script access is required. > And in general I'd rather avoid adding new things to the platform that are > opaque to scripting. > That all seems very vague. Can you explain what you have in mind? > For Alex's suggestion above, would there be any problems with a parameter > (for the first method) and return type (for the second) that could be an > Element or something else? Adding two helper methods seems messier to me > than what's currently specced, but I'm open to the idea if it's much > easier to implement. > It depends on how many things will implement Region. If there are N things, you'll need to add N properties and you're essentially asking web developers to call QueryInterface on the object to see what sort of Region it really is. Adam
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
