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

Re: [css3-fonts] font-variant-numeric

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:52:41 -0700
Message-ID: <4BABA2E9.3000100@inkedblade.net>
To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org
On 03/24/2010 06:57 PM, John Daggett wrote:
> fantasai wrote:
>> I'm not sure what you're getting at here. They should both be invalid, because
>> lining-nums and oldstyle-nums are mutually exclusive.
>> Meaning, font-variant's grammar should be rewritten as
>> normal | inherit | [<ligature-values>  ||<alternates-values>  ||<caps-value>
>>                      ||<numeric-values>   ||<east-asian-variations>  ]
> That has the downside that this would be invalid:
>    font-variant: oldstyle-nums additional-ligatures slashed-zero;
> This is because 'oldstyle-nums' and 'slashed-zero' are both from the
> <numeric-values>  production.
> Stated generally, I don't think the double-bar operator used in CSS
> grammar rules is associative:
>    (a || b) || c  !=  a || (b || c)
> In one case 'c a b' would be valid, in the other not.

Hm, that's a good point. The shorthand would need a more expanded-out
grammar to make that work.

> I guess one solution would be to simply expand out the full list of
> mutually exclusive properties but I think there's still a risk that
> cutting-and-pasting authors could accidently introduce invalid
> font-variant strings.  My initial grammar simply allowed multiple
> mutually exclusive values in the syntax and resolved it at use, with
> the later value taking precedence.

I don't think it makes sense to allow mutually exclusive values in the
syntax and then ignore one of them. We overwrite earlier declarations
with later declarations, but I don't know of any other property in which
an earlier *value* is ignored when overwritten by a later value in the
same declaration. I'd rather make it invalid, so that the author has a
clue that something's not quite right (because the UA throws out the
whole rule) and so that the validator can catch what's almost certainly
an authoring error.

Received on Thursday, 25 March 2010 17:53:09 UTC

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