- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 01:58:04 +1100
- To: Paul D Stanwyck <n0kule@comcast.net>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Paul D Stanwyck wrote: > ...I beleive that the property 'bottom' should be renamed as it were. > > I propose that while developing upcoming standards, the property in > question may be referred to as, perhaps, 'box-bottom', 'element-bottom', > 'block-bottom', etc. Such a name would help alleviate the confusion Such names would seem to be much more confusing for authors than simply 'bottom' and would break backwards compatibility for absolutely no good reason. > caused for novice authors and even some (X)HTML/CSS editors so widely > used, that which prevents some (authors and user-agents/editors) to > determine if one particular instance of 'bottom' is a property or a > value. All property/value pairs are in this form: property : value ; If it occurs on the left of the colon, it's a property. If it occurs on the right, it's a value. It couldn't be any simpler. > I prefer to use a popular freeware code editor (Crimson Editor) which > allows one to use custom syntax files...it was unable to > properly highlight the property 'bottom'. It was assuming that this > property was simply a value; although, in the wrong place... > I then attempted to edit the custom syntax files, but soon realized that > there isn't, to my knowledge, a way of determining for this editor when > one keyword acts as property or as a value in this particular context. Limitations of the syntax highlighting abilities of one particular editor – especially one which clearly does not parse the CSS properly, but rather searches for matching string patterns and highlights them – is, in no way, a reason to consider this to be a flaw in the specification. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2005 14:58:14 UTC