On 03/08/2017 11:11 PM, Dan Zulla wrote: > Writing a CSS Parser in Javascript, for an accurate playground/demo, is > equally meh as diving right into Firefox.
I wasn't suggesting that you write a CSS Parser in JavaScript. I imagine your JS demo would probably want to build on top of preexisting JS libraries for working with CSS, and/or you might want to use a more restricted set of properties & more resticted/convenient syntax for your proof-of-concept. Something like that. > We should make scripts/constraint-based programming tools that make > implementation of new features an easy and funny thing to do. That's a worthy goal. Unfortunately it can't really be that simple, for new features that break invariants that the engine depends on (and that modify the rendering behavior of pretty much every CSS property). Those sorts of changes are going to require serious architectural work. You might be interested in reading about CSS Houdini, though: https://github.com/w3c/css-houdini-drafts/wiki https://github.com/w3c/css-houdini-drafts/wiki/specs That set of specs (when finalized/implemented) will expose more low-level CSS primitives/APIs to web developers, so they can prototype CSS features on their own, using JavaScript. It'll be a while before it's shipping, though (a few parts of it might arrive in Firefox later this year, at the earliest). So I suspect it's not what you want to use for this project. > And I > still don't like that Rust is already a build dependency. Who made that > decision? Yeah, you expressed that on Twitter, too. It confuses me that this upsets you, but I don't want to be drawn into a debate / side-discussion about it. You can read more about some motivation/background here, if you're interested: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2016/07/shipping-rust-in-firefox/ ~Daniel _______________________________________________ dev-tech-layout mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-layout
