Re: [css3-gcpm] No need to call out attr() in bookmark-label and bookmark-target

Tab wrote:

 > In the definitions for 'bookmark-label' and 'bookmark-target', the
 > property definition line explicitly talks about the attr() function.
 > There's no need to do so - attr() resolves to a particular type based
 > on its type argument.

Right, we no longer need to do what CSS 2.1 does -- e.g., here:

  http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/generate.html#propdef-content

A relief.

I've removed it from the editor's draft:

 > So bookmark-label, for example, only needs to
 > say that it accepts <string>, and then any use of "attr(foo as
 > string)" or "attr(foo)" will be valid, but "attr(foo as color)" won't
 > be.  A similar consideration applies for bookmark-target and the <url>
 > type.

I can see that the cue-based approach to functional arguments make
some sense; replacing "," with " as " could possible make things more
readable. Taking the type out of the parethesis may be even better:

    bookmark-label: attr(title) as string

I'm not sure it scales, though. Consider this example, which people
have been writing for some years:

    a::after { content: "(see page " target-counter(attr(href, url), page, decimal) ")" }

which could become:

    a::after { content: "(see page " target-counter(attr(href as url) of page as decimal) ")" }

or perhaps:

    a::after { content: "(see page " target-counter(attr(href) as url, of (page) as decimal) ")" }

It suddenly doesn't look as good anymore. Hmm.

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome

Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2011 00:16:39 UTC