W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2013

Re: [css-syntax] value grammar, <value> type and browser implementations

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 11:29:18 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDvoUM6c4DkhQNbatNZVhJtc8KeiysB1+skzUnBsprL=g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fran├žois REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Fran├žois REMY
<francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote:
>> The use of the value production from 2.1 isn't desirable in any case.
>> What we actually want to do is simply say that it has no grammar -
>> that every possible property value is valid for a custom property.
>> That way, the only limitation is what is automatically imposed by the
>> parser itself.
>
> My issue is that browsers do not seem to follow any spec for their property value syntax (because the CSS Syntax is more permissive than any non-custom property need, and inexplicably complex).
>
> The 'value' grammar doesn't make any sense to me: it seem to accept {a:a} but not {'a':'a'} or {a}. It should accept [;;] but not {;;}. I would like the value tokenization to be redefined to be more understandable and independant of other productions like 'block', 'declaration' and 'property'.

Since that's what I just said, obviously I agree.  ^_^  Once browsers
match Syntax, they'll be able to do a reasonable value for the grammar
of custom properties.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 19:30:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:05 GMT