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

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

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:11:34 -0700
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20120525231134.GA24588@crum.dbaron.org>
On Friday 2012-05-25 15:55 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:51 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Hm?  No, the DIMENSION token covers *all* possible units.

Er, oh.  Actually, the DIMENSION token covers all units *except*
those that are in CSS2.1, which are covered by the EMS, EXS, LENGTH,
ANGLE, TIME, and FREQ tokens.

That said, Appendix G is designed to be a description of what syntax
is legal in CSS 2.1 and not designed to be a description of how to
parse CSS.  I still don't think it's a good idea to use it as part
of a spec for how CSS should be parsed.

> > 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...".
> 
> I've gone ahead and done so, but cleaned it up a little with more
> explanatory text:

Thanks.

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
Received on Friday, 25 May 2012 23:12:00 GMT

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