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

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

From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:21:01 +0100
Message-ID: <51C952ED.3030604@exyr.org>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Le 24/06/2013 22:16, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
> The term "specified value" has always been confusing, because it does
> *not* refer to the value the author specified.  Instead, it's always
> referred to the value that starts the standard value-computation
> chain, at the point where a given element has a value for every
> property.
>
> Ironically, we don't actually *have* a term for the value the author
> actually specified in the stylesheet, or the close-enough concept of
> what CSSStyleDeclaration returns.
>
> Private conversation with dbaron (in #css) led to the following suggestions:
>
> 1. Use "declared value" for the value of a declaration; that is, what
> is returned when you query CSSStyleDeclaration.  This is not
> associated with any particular element, and may not have a value for
> every property.
>
> 2. Drop the term "specified value", and slightly modify Cascade so
> that "cascaded value" fills the role.  This just requires us to
> slightly change the verbiage around how we handle the global keywords;
> currently, the "cascaded value" may be empty or resolve to one of the
> global keywords.  We'd change it so that as part of the computation of
> the cascaded value, we guarantee that we fill in a value, and resolve
> away the global keywords.  (Our current use of "cascaded value" in the
> spec is unobservable from the outside, and we can just lean on the
> term "result of the cascade" to represent the value that might be
> empty or might be a global keyword.)
>
> Thoughts?

This sounds good, but when doing the edits please add a note near the 
definitions that explains the old terms, for people reading CSS 2.1 or 
mailing list archives.

By the we, should we errata 2.1 for such editorial but fundamental changes?

-- 
Simon Sapin
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2013 08:21:23 UTC

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