W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2008

Re: [CSS21] Editorial comment for 4.2, unexpected end of string

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:56:42 -0700
Message-ID: <47DF215A.2070606@inkedblade.net>
To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
CC: W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>

Bert Bos wrote:
> Somebody (I got the comment second-hand, so I don't know who) was 
> bothered by an inconsistency in two of the examples in section 4.2[1].
> 
> The example under "Malformed declarations" states that
> 
>     p { color:red;   color; color:green }
> 
> is equivalent to
> 
>     p { color:green }
> 
> The example under "Unexpected end of string" states that
> 
>     p {
>         color: green;
>         font-family: 'Courier New Times
>         color: red;
>         color: green;
>     }
> 
> would be treated the same as:
> 
>     p { color: green; color: green; }
> 
> Both examples are correct. But in the first example, the syntactically 
> valid but meaningless 'color: red' is omitted from the "equivalent" 
> rule; while in the second example, the equally valid and 
> meaningless 'color: green' is present in the "treated the same" rule.
> 
> I can see how the examples can confuse people who expected the section 
> to define some sort of normalization algorithm for CSS style sheets. We 
> can maybe try to add more examples in the CSS3 Syntax module to avoid 
> that expectation. But every change to the text of CSS 2.1 risks 
> introducing new errors and delays.
> 
> So I propose we don't change CSS 2.1.

It's in an example, right? I propose you take it upon yourself to fix
the discrepency. Since it's an editorial change, and you're the editor,
you can fix it without a WG resolution. (I'd suggest changing the first
instance to list both valid declarations.)

~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2008 01:57:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:02 GMT