W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2006

Regarding Comma Separation

From: Ben Ward <benmward@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:41:46 +0000
Message-ID: <ef5d0f2f0601160941y169afd69of0dc1ed84d9f841b@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>
On 1/16/06, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com> wrote:
> I also think that it is syntactically more verbose and more
> complex than a simple comma-separated list of values.
>
> Multiple backgrounds have been fully implemented in Safari 1.3 and
> 2.0, and the feedback on the syntax from those who have played around
> with it has been very positive so far.
>

I'm fairly happy with the comma separation as well, it certainly
maintains simplicity (I initially advocated a kind of array-indexing
syntax for a while, but simple+familiar does work best).

There is one concern that I have, which is that different parts of CSS
are now using comma separation for different things:

Using commas for background-image specifies _additional_ images while
using commas in font-family specifies _fallback_ typefaces.

Then, in CSS3 Generated Content §11 [1],commas are used to separate
_fallback_ content, including images. The example for §11 is even
using the comma syntax for image fallback.

If comma separation is going to be used in more CSS properties in
future, perhaps it would be better if the usage was made more
consistent?

Could a different symbol, perhaps '&', be used for multiples such as
those for multiple background images? This would clear the way to
specify fallback for _background-image_ using commas.

I'd be interested to know if use of comma-syntax has been specified by
the WG for use in future features (thus keeping future use
consistent), or whether it's likely to remain a bit oddball like this.

Regards,
Ben

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-css3-content-20030514/#inserting3
Received on Monday, 16 January 2006 17:41:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:42 GMT