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

Re: [css-cascade] Naming "value of a declaration", renaming "specified value"

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 15:26:32 -0700
To: rune@opera.com
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20130624222632.GA20133@crum.dbaron.org>
On Monday 2013-06-24 22:18 +0000, rune@opera.com wrote:
> Quoting "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>:
> 
> >I'm asking why we need a publicly exposed term for what "specified
> >value" used to mean.  In other words, it seems to be a concept that
> >might be useful inside the cascade module but is unlikely to be
> >useful outside of it.  In turn, that makes me think we'd be better
> >off not giving it a nice easy-to-refer-to term that people are
> >likely to refer to.
> >
> >In other words, I'm proposing not replacing the term "specified
> >value" with anything that's easy to refer to, and leaving the term
> >"cascaded value" as it is.
> 
> You have computed values in terms of specified value in property definitions:
> 
> "Computed value: as specified"
> 
> With Tab's suggested change to "cascaded value" you can say:
> 
> "Computed value: as cascaded"
> 
> Otherwise you would still need the another equivalent to the
> 'specified value' term, right?

I don't think this is necessary; "as specified" means "equivalent to
the form in which the value is specified", since I don't think "as
specified" is intended to hook into the "specified value" term.

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
Received on Monday, 24 June 2013 22:27:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:12 UTC