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

Re: 'initial' | 'inherit' inconsistency

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:20:38 -0700
Message-ID: <4CCA75C6.4000504@inkedblade.net>
To: "Eric A. Meyer" <eric@meyerweb.com>
CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
On 10/28/2010 11:17 AM, Eric A. Meyer wrote:
> At 10:58 AM -0700 10/28/10, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
>> It is somewhat inconsistent, but CSS3 Values & Units makes the
>> definitive statement that all properties everywhere accept 'inherit'
>> and 'initial', and defines what that means.
>
> Yes, but not many modules reference it, which makes whatever it says
> inapplicable in those cases, does it not? And then there's the cases
> where properties explicitly define an 'initial' that might be at odds
> with the universal 'initial' that Values & Units defines. It's fairly
> hard to tell. It also implies that any property that explicitly lists
> 'inherit' could be defining something different than the universal
> 'inherit'. Maybe they aren't, but do we know? For sure?
> I'm still firmly on the side of explicitly listing them on each property
> definition rather than relying on a blanket statement located somewhere
> other than the property definition. Doing so greatly reduces the chances
> of confusion.

I would prefer to have each CSS3 module add its own blanket statement
the way CSS3 Backgrounds and Borders does [1], but not include the
values in their property definitions. The grammar for many CSS3
properties is already fairly complex: grouping the entire thing in
an extra set of brackets in order to add "| inherit" just makes it
more confusing.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#values

~fantasai
Received on Friday, 29 October 2010 07:21:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:33 GMT