W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2011

Re: [css3-text] Splitting CSS Text into Level 3 and Level 4

From: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:41:42 +0100
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.v50wjs1r4p7avi@localhost.localdomain>
Tab said:
> Florian said:
>> Tab said:

>>> For the first issue (regarding whether to use an ident or an
>>> function-with-ident), just use an ident and define a few special
>>> values as not overwritable by authors (specifically, "none",
>>> "initial", "inherit", and any other global values we end up creating).
>>
>> Sounds fine to me.
>>
>> And if the author overrides an existing keyword that can be used as a  
>> value
>> of text-transform (eg: uppercase), the author's definition wins?
>
> Yeah.

Draft updated.

>> <urange>s are neat. I didn't know about them, and they definitely
>> make sense here. That said, maybe we should also keep the literal
>> character notation, as "a","z" (or the "a":"z" variant) is a lot
>> more readable than U+41-5A.
>
> Both of the literal variants seem problematic, unfortunately.  The
> first uses commas with a different precedence than normal (ordinarily,
> spaces bind tighter than commas), and the second uses a brand-new
> character that we haven't used as a separator before.

uranges do exactly what I need, so I could live with them. At the same
time, they are not very human-readable, and it bothers me more here and
in @font.

Do you have a proposal of a literal variant that would play nicer with
existing things?

  - Florian
Received on Monday, 5 December 2011 15:42:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:47 GMT