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.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 23 April 2012 20:41:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:52 GMT