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

Re: [css21] Revising the definition of the 'inherit' keyword

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:27:08 +0100
Message-ID: <4ED55C3C.9060204@moonhenge.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
On 29/11/2011 21:17, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:34 PM, fantasai<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>  wrote:
>> On 11/18/2011 04:30 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>> Sveral telcons ago we discussed the definition of the 'inherit'
>>> keyword in the 2.1 spec, and agreed to change it to be better in line
>>> with what CSS3 Cascade says.  Here's my attempted edit:
[snip]
>>> I believe that's all the changes that would be necessary.
>>
>> I agree with Anton that the errata's wording seems fine. We already
>> have a resolution to fix it, so unless you feel the errata's wording
>> is insufficient in some way, there's no reason to reopen this.
>
> Ah, I didn't realize we had errata for it.  I had an action to draft
> text for it from several weeks ago, so I was discharging that action.
> ^_^
>
> The errata is fine, but incomplete.  Per Oyvind's feedback, 6.1.2
> should strike the sentence "See the section on inheritance for the
> definition of computed values when the specified value is 'inherit'.",
> since the specified value is never inherit.  As well, it should
> include something like my proposal for the meaning of 'inherit' on
> shorthand properties, which don't have computed values.

Exactly.  Those two extensions are also necessary.

Cheers,
Anton Prowse
http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2011 22:28:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:46 GMT