W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2001

Re: CSS2 erratum: 'text-shadow' value definition

From: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:36:33 -0400
Message-ID: <3BBAA3E1.77BD68A1@escape.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Etan Wexler wrote:
> >
> > The incorrect value definition follows.
> >
> >   Value:      none | [<color> || <length> <length> <length>? ,]* [<color> ||
> > <length> <length> <length>?] | inherit
> >
> > [...] I suggest the following, which corrects both problems.
> >
> > Value:        none | [ <shadow> , ]* <shadow> | inherit
> >
> > where <shadow> is
> > [ <length> <length> <length>? <color>? |
> >   <color> <length> <length> <length>? ]
> 
> Excluding the comma problem, which is indeed known (but thanks
> anyway!) what is the difference between the current spec and your
> proposal? I don't really understand what you are fixing...


Currently, you can set color without setting the offset, but the prose
requires the offset lengths.

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/about.html#property-defs

|| means and/or (in any order)
So I can have a color, or the offset lengths (and optional blur), or both.
I'm not supposed to be able to set a color without any offset lengths.

By explicitly specifying the two possible positions for <color>, Etan is
removing the <color>-only option.
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2001 01:34:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:11 GMT