Hi all,
I don't consider the two contradictory at all. CSS 2 says that we
should treat
the stylesheet as if the style sheet was missing the unknown properties.
The
CSSStyleDec says that we should report all the specified properties. This
does
would not include the 'unknown' properties since CSS 2 says that we _must_
ignore
them.
Including would also open a huge can of worms. What is the
computed value
of an unknown property? What is the 'default' value of an unknown
property? Is the
unknown property inherited? Is the unknown property a short-hand for other
properties?
These are all cases where an implementation that tries to 'fake
it' will
behave grossly different from an implementation that knows about the
property.
CSS can not function properly without understanding a property,
which is why
the correctly indicate that unknown properties are to be ignored.
> Cameron McCormack wrote:
> > That's interesting, since CSS 2 states[1]:
> >
> > To ensure that new properties and new values for existing properties
> > can be added in the future, user agents are required to obey the
> > following rules when they encounter the following scenarios:
> >
> > * Unknown properties. User agents must ignore a declaration with
> > an unknown property. For example, if the style sheet is:
> >
> > H1 { color: red; rotation: 70minutes }
> >
> > the user agent will treat this as if the style sheet had been
> >
> > H1 { color: red }
> >
> > This seems to contradict what's said in DOM 2 Style. Certainly
Batik's
> > CSS engine currently doesn't store any non-SVG CSS properties at the
> > moment.
Robin Berjon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/12/2005 06:30:45 AM:
> I think this is due to a difference in what is meant by "ignore". For
> purposes of actually styling a tree (which is what the CSS spec concerns
> itself with) indeed unknown properties must be ignored. However at the
> level of the DOM, this isn't needed. It's the same thing as "ignoring"
> elements in a namespace you don't know -- you still put them in the DOM.
>
> The SVG WG went through this discussion a while back, with input from
> the CSS WG, and concluded on the above. This never translated into any
> document since it would concern SVG Full 1.2 and since it's not clear
> that such prose needs to be in our docs, and it's not clear if the CSS
> WG has consensus or not.
>
> I think this would be well worth a last call comment on CSS 2.1 (which
> has the same language) to get the CSS WG to clarify.
>
> --
> Robin Berjon
> Senior Research Scientist
> Expway, http://expway.com/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
