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

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

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:40:23 -0400
Message-ID: <4EAADAF7.5040009@mit.edu>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 10/28/11 12:35 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> I'm open to making things more readable; but I don't think readable means
> incomplete and inconsistent. It would be silly to repeat the same long
> series of things every time if we can shorten it without losing valid information.

OK.  I think making the basic rule that all properties allow values as 
specified in module X (X of your choice) is non-lossy....

>> I don't see how this is any worse than CSS core syntax being defined in a
>> separate document from all the various CSS3 modules.
>
> So because there is already some confusion, we shouldn't fix any?

I don't see why the core syntax being defined in one place as opposed to 
every spec copy/pasting it and getting out of sync is getting labeled as 
"confusion" here.

I see the inherit/initial/whatever issue as similar: having it defined 
in one place that all other specs simply reference is the thing that 
will minimize confusion going forward.

The only reason it's being a problem right now, as far as I can see, is 
that CSS3 modules are not consistent about the way they handle it.  I 
absolutely agree they should be consistent; I just think they should 
converge on referencing a single central location for this instead of 
duplicating things.

> Sure. I have no issue with that, as long as the dependency from values/types
> to their central definition is explicit, visible and unambiguous. And whatever
> the solution, I would  like us to be consistent.

Yes, absolutely.  Consistency is key here.  The current state of things 
is broken.

-Boris
Received on Friday, 28 October 2011 16:40:54 GMT

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