W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2012

Re: [css3-values][css-variables] definition of <value>

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:40:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCWBB83jHUVW9=L5kyyNGTFVT97LbiD9pZ8LQNwrnKMhQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
Cc: WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu
<kennyluck@csail.mit.edu> wrote:
> (12/04/24 4:01), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> Heya Kenny!
>> Below are the resolutions of the issues you raised in this thread.
>> Issue 12: cycle() and values that have commas
>> Closed as OutOfScope pending WG resolution - we're proposing to punt
>> cycle() to the next level so we can address these and other issues
>> with cycle() more properly.
> Does this mean that <fallback> for attr() can contain commas? I have no
> problem with this but I should warn that something like "attr(x, 50%,
> 50%)" prevents us from having a third argument in the future (which I
> don't consider a big problem), not to mention that it is a big ugly.
> Assuming the above interpretation of the current draft (i.e. attr() can
> contain commas), I am satisfied with this as long as you editors are
> satisfied, but If the idea is to make the interpreation ambiguous at
> this level, I would like to request an explicit "undefined" about
> <fallback> in this regard.

Yup, commas are allowed in the fallback.  We believe we can work
around any issues in the future with adding more arguments.

Received on Monday, 23 April 2012 20:41:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:35:08 UTC