W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2010

Re: [css-style-attr] SVG WG comments on CSS Styling Attributes Level 1

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 05:45:14 -0700
Message-ID: <4C73BEDA.2040409@inkedblade.net>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
CC: www-style@w3.org, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Chris Lilley wrote:
>
>>> 3) In section 3. Syntax and Parsing, the actual grammar for a style
>>> attribute, following CSS2.1 chapter 4, appears to be
>
>>> declaration-list
>>>    : C* S* C* declaration? C* [ ';' C* S* C* declaration? C*]* C*
>>>    ;
>
>>> where C is the comment production. Is that correct? (Specifically, are
>>> leading and trailing comments allowed, as well as ones between tokens?)
>
> f> I'll leave this question to Bert, who's our resident grammar expert.
>
> I haven't found any response from Bert on this.

Peter and Zack responded instead. See the responses to your message:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Feb/0192.html
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Feb/0193.html

>>> 4) However, in In section 3. Syntax and Parsing,
>...
>>> The contents could be argued to include the curly braces, therefore.
>>> This might be made clearer ...
>
> f> Given that it's rather odd to say that the contents of a block delimited
> f> by curly braces includes the curly braces *and* given that the statement
> f> is qualified by the application of a formal grammar rule that does not
> f> include the curly braces, I don't think this clarification is necessary.
>
> This is suboptimal, given that the prose in general overrides the grammars
> and that the prose uses an undefined term. It is particularly unfortunate,
> given that there have been discussions in the past as to whether curly
> braces were allowed (and proposals to extend the syntax, taking advantage
> of the curly braces).
>
> f> Please let me know if you consider this a problem.
>
> We would prefer that the clarification, which is a minor wording change
> which improves the clarity, still be added.

I've added "(excluding the delimiting braces)" to the paragraph here:
   http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-style-attr/#syntax

Let me know if this addresses your comment.

> Scientific notation is NOT allowed.
>
> I have been asked by the SVG WG to ask the CSS WG, once again, to allow
> scientific notation for those properties which allow it. In SVG, currently
> those properties allow scientific notation in presentation attributes but
> dissallow it in style sheets (style attributes, style elements, external
> style sheets). This disparity causes user confusion.

This issue is out of scope for the Styling Attributes specification.

(Also, the CSSWG has already resolved not to make this change.)

~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2010 12:46:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:30 GMT