On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would like to have: > > 1) Major and Major.Minor support > 2) A syntax that is already supported by CSS @ styles in at least one > browser or as close as we can come > 3) Range, greater than and less than if possible
These all sound good to me. The underlying style handling layer (the old XSS stuff) was never designed to support #1 or #3, but think it would be worthwhile to see what we can do to address these. > > #2 I think is really important so that skinning feels familiar to CSS > developers. > > If the solution meets those needs, I will be very happy, but others > can decide on the exact syntax, I'm flexible I've got a process question here, which I am a bit hesitant to ask given our recent "discussions", but, well, what the heck... Shouldn't we be discussing/reviewing such requirements/API additions before the changes are committed to the trunks? Not that I am not grateful that Cristi has invested the time on providing a solution (thanks for doing this Cristi!). I am just wondering whether in general it would be better to review/agree on new APIs before they get committed. Does Trinidad (or MyFaces) have any policy/guidelines on how new API/feature additions should be handled? Not picking on Cristi here - I recently added some new skinning features myself and wasn't sure whether there were some specific steps that I needed to follow. Andy
