- From: Brad Kemper via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:02:05 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@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