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:

>>> 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:

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.)

Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2010 12:46:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:34:40 UTC