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

Re: [css3-*] Defining support for the inherit keyword

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:38:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDbTu7UX20NcSToVCvaApoRkDfGFYw5igBRWqOdpg+UCQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Sylvain Galineau
<sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
> One major CSS3 module [1] starts with the following statement:
>
> "All properties defined in this specification also accept the inherit keyword as their
> property value, but for readability it has not been listed explicitly."
>
> Others, [2][3] include inherit in the syntax definition of each property.
>
> An increasing number of modules appear to do neither [4][5][6] do not. This is causing some
> confusion as there is no way to tell whether this is deliberate or not.
>
> My preference is for the simple, unambiguous approach followed by Color [2] and Fonts [3].
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-fonts/
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-transitions/
> [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-images/
> [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-flexbox/

My preference is to not have to mention anything - the global keywords
are defined in Values & Units as applying to all properties, and we
shouldn't have to worry about that detail otherwise (unless the
property accepts arbitrary user-defined keywords, in which case you
have to explicitly prevent those from being valid values).

If that's not good enough, I prefer adding a line to the boilerplate
like what B&B has.  This is almost as good as every spec ignoring it.

I really don't want every property to have to include " | inherit |
initial" in its value definition.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 27 October 2011 18:38:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:45 GMT