Remove isInternalProperty

Remove isInternalProperty

Completely remove the internal property concept for now.
For one there are no internal properties at the moment.
If we do need it in the future we can re-evaluate
and see what it is the best approach with the new CSS Parser
in mind.

BUG=396992
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=189502

[esprehn, 2015-02-02 02:37:35]

esprehn@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ esprehn@chromium.org

[esprehn, 2015-02-02 02:37:35]

We don't need this for controlling access to -internal-foo CSS properties?

[Timothy Loh, 2015-02-02 02:38:24]

On 2015/02/02 02:37:35, esprehn wrote:
> We don't need this for controlling access to -internal-foo CSS properties?

We don't have any anymore, the question is whether we want to keep the
infrastructure around for them.

[esprehn, 2015-02-02 02:47:28]

On 2015/02/02 at 02:38:24, timloh wrote:
> On 2015/02/02 02:37:35, esprehn wrote:
> > We don't need this for controlling access to -internal-foo CSS properties?
> 
> We don't have any anymore, the question is whether we want to keep the
infrastructure around for them.

We still have pseudo elements and values with -internal. I think we should keep
the infra for the properties, you might want to add one just as a test. If you
don't keep the infra for it then people will resort back to adding -webkit ones
again. :(

[rwlbuis, 2015-02-02 03:08:01]

On 2015/02/02 02:47:28, esprehn wrote:
> On 2015/02/02 at 02:38:24, timloh wrote:
> > On 2015/02/02 02:37:35, esprehn wrote:
> > > We don't need this for controlling access to -internal-foo CSS properties?
> > 
> > We don't have any anymore, the question is whether we want to keep the
> infrastructure around for them.
> 
> We still have pseudo elements and values with -internal. I think we should
keep
> the infra for the properties, you might want to add one just as a test. If you
> don't keep the infra for it then people will resort back to adding -webkit
ones
> again. :(

If we want to keep isInternalProperty then I think
https://codereview.chromium.org/880983009/
makes a bit more sense. I'll close this one for now.

[Timothy Loh, 2015-02-03 00:29:42]

timloh@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ timloh@chromium.org

[Timothy Loh, 2015-02-03 00:29:42]

I had a quick chat with esprehn/ojan/jchaffraix about this and we decided it's
probably better to remove it. lgtm

[Julien - ping for review, 2015-02-03 02:23:24]

jchaffraix@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jchaffraix@chromium.org

[Julien - ping for review, 2015-02-03 02:23:24]

lgtm2

You should add a bit more context to the description (at least a line about 'why
do we remove it')

[rwlbuis, 2015-02-03 18:03:43]

On 2015/02/03 02:23:24, Julien Chaffraix - AEST wrote:
> lgtm2
> 
> You should add a bit more context to the description (at least a line about
'why
> do we remove it')

Sure this was more a WIP patch :) Will do.

[rwlbuis, 2015-02-04 11:55:07]

The CQ bit was checked by rob.buis@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-04 11:56:14]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/879443006/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-04 14:10:17]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1) as
https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=189502