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

Re: [csswg-drafts] Some property definitions for shorthands should not say 'see individual properties'

From: Florian Rivoal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 01:05:05 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-228230058-1466730305-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
> It could have had none as initial value, which is not part of the 
longhands' syntaxes.

Whether or not `none` is part of the longhand's syntax, the shorthand 
can only have `none` as an initial value of what `none` on the 
shorthand sets the longhands to is their initial value. Anything else 
is nonsensical.

> what about the other property definitions mentioned above?

What about them? The initial values of the flex and font property you 
describe do not exist independently of the initial values of the 
longhands. “The  initial value of the flex property is 1 0 auto” is 
nothing more than a shortcut way of saying “The initial values of the 
flex-grow flex-shrink and flex-basis properties are respectively 1, 0 
and auto”. 

GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal
Please view or discuss this issue at 
using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 24 June 2016 01:05:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:40:59 UTC