W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > July 2016

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-color] Unnecessary comma in color()

From: Brad Kemper via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:02:05 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-234300576-1469116923-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
@fantasai @frivoal I'd support that variation. 

@leaverou I don't think having a slash would equate to authors not 
wanting to use it. With `border-radius`, it just isn't needed that 
much because the vast majority of border radii are symmetrical with 
regard to vertical and horizontal. Also, it is a little confusing and 
harder to remember that when specifying the two axes on a single 
corner (with `border-top-left-radius` for instance), no slash is 
required between the two values, but when using the border-radius 
shorthand, you do need a slash between the two axis values. 

With the background shorthand, there was a long time when background 
shorthands didn't support inclusion of background-size, and authors 
got used to writing it separately. Even today, it is often a separate 
thought to change the default size of the background size (at least 
for me, when I use it). It is also often useful to be written in a 
separate, more general rule when the value is 'contain', for instance,
 while more specific rules change the image source. There may also be 
some authors who can't remember where to put the slash and 
background-size value in the shorthand, because it is such a long, 
complex syntax. 

I don't think any of these issues would apply to color(). Font 
shorthand shows that authors are not adverse to using a slash when it 
makes sense and is easy to do so. 

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by bradkemper
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/266#issuecomment-234300576 
using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2016 16:02:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:00 UTC