- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 13:51:03 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Friday 2012-05-25 12:26 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:59 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> > On Friday 2012-05-25 11:43 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> >> Sorry, I didn't fully apply the proper edits. Look in the prop table.
> >
> > I guess the important part is:
> >
> > [ <number> | <percentage> | <dimension> | <string> | <ident> |
> > <url> | <function> | <hash> ]
> >
> > I'd note that <dimension>, <ident>, <function>, and <hash> aren't
> > actually defined anywhere.
>
> Yes, I expect to define them in the Syntax spec. They have the
> obvious definitions (<dimension>, <ident>, and <hash> are equal to the
> corresponding tokens, <function> is equal to the function production
> in Appendix G).
I don't think we should add normative references to the informative
Appendix G. I'd also note that this forbids the use of any new
units in the values of variables.
> > And, in particular, <function> being
> > defined according to the core grammar would mean this isn't a
> > simplification at all for implementations, but just constrains the
> > future syntax of property values (e.g., to not use parentheses as
> > some drafts of the background shorthand did).
>
> Improvements welcome. If you think I should '(' <value> ')' valid, I
> can do that.
I'd consider it an improvement to change the "Values:" line back to
matching the part of the prose that says "The valid possible
values...".
-David
--
𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂
𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Friday, 25 May 2012 20:51:29 UTC