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

[cssom] mark the order of shorthand serialization an issue (was: [css-background] Order of properties in background shorthand)

From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 06:58:10 +0800
Message-ID: <4FC7F782.1050405@csail.mit.edu>
To: WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
CC: Joe Thomas <joethomas@motorola.com>
(12/06/01 2:43), L. David Baron wrote:
> (Yes, I'm aware that the editor of [cssom] has proposed otherwise in
> the editor's draft at
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom/#serializing-css-values , but I think
> there was opposition to that from the group (since the "Value:"
> lines weren't intended for that use), which led to the introduction
> of the "Canonical order:" line in the property templates.)

(12/06/01 6:28), Brian Manthos wrote:
> Joe Thomas:
>> So if we change the above order to "red url(dummy://test.png) 50%
>> 50% / cover border-box"
> As others have hinted, there isn't "an order" that the parser
> supports.  Or at least, nowhere near as rigid as you're describing.
> I can see an opportunity for "convenience" in the canonical ordering
> being changed - but, as others have hinted - the notion of a
> canonical order (and which one) is also not settled in the WG.  So
> you're suggesting that something that "doesn't exist" be changed
> is... confusing.

Then, please move the relevant prose in CSSOM to an issue box with red
borders. Not many people can follow the meeting minutes or the mailing
list to see what the attitude of the WG is.


Cheers,
Kenny
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 22:58:51 GMT

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