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

Re: [css-variables] allowed syntax of variable values (was Re: status ?)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 11:43:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDB0EUK1LzBfZgUhTCusAVvu-FCFBBxwAGy0NnGpAXBcxA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:41 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> On Friday 2012-05-25 10:18 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 10:03 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
>> > On Friday 2012-05-25 09:31 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> >> 4. Tighten the syntax of variables.  This should be pretty
>> >> non-controversial, as the current definition is way to underdefined.
>> >> This is easy to do - basically it'll just be a space, comma, or
>> >> slash-separated list of "[ <number> | <dimension> | <string> |
>> >> <function> ... ]".  Very permissive, but still disallows weird things
>> >> like unbalanced parens and such.  The WebKit impl already uses this
>> >> slightly restricted grammar (we basically parse it as a "term+", from
>> >> the Appendix G grammar).
>> >
>> > I'm concerned about this change (and, in particular, I'm concerned
>> > about it leading to something that's engine-specific rather than
>> > implementable across engines), but I'd like to see details of what
>> > you're proposing before commenting further.
>>
>> My proposal is in the draft now:
>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-variables/#variable-property
>
> The current text is:
>  # The valid possible values of a variable property are almost
>  # completely unrestricted. A variable property can contain
>  # anything that is valid according to the value production in the
>  # CSS Core Grammar. The values do not have to correspond to any
>  # existing CSS values, as they are not evaluated except to replace
>  # variables occurring within them until they are actually
>  # referenced in a normal property with a variable.
> which I'm fine with, though it doesn't sound like the change you
> described.

Sorry, I didn't fully apply the proper edits.  Look in the prop table.

(I assume you have a cached version getting in your way, or else you'd
have noticed that.)

~TJ
Received on Friday, 25 May 2012 18:44:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:54 GMT