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

Re: [css-syntax] Comments on "Parser Algorithms" section

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:38:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDgmqet_j8pmgUcOT=Fv-xGp+ndvKWF2F4JJCPpzR7=zw@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 4:33 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 06/26/2013 03:02 AM, Simon Sapin wrote:
>> Le 26/06/2013 00:12, L. David Baron a écrit :
>>> I'm a little concerned about the "component value" terminology; I'd
>>> prefer using a term that doesn't involve "value".  But I don't have
>>> a better idea right now.
>>
>> Previous revisions of this spec used "primitive" for this concept, until
>> we noticed that the concept is the same as in Values
>> & Units:
>>
>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-values/#value-defs
>>
>> But I understand the desire to make a distinction. Does "primitive" sound
>> better than "component value"?
>
> Maybe "component primitive" instead of "component value"?
> Then at least it ties back to the concept of "component value",
> but implies it's a slightly lower-level concept.

It's really not a lower-level concept, though.  It's exactly the same
level as V&U's "component value".  No additional filtering/processing
happens to the values after this point.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2013 23:39:24 UTC

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