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: Sebastian Zartner via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 06:03:41 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-228265045-1466748220-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 if what `none` on 
the shorthand sets the longhands to is their initial value. Anything 
else is nonsensical.

Right, the mapping between the keyword and the initial values of the 
longhands is obligatory.
Non-the-less would it be a keyword, so only 'see individual 
properties' would be incorrect in that case.

As we didn't have a precedent for this yet, I'm conviced now that 
having 'see individual properties' is the right choice here.

>> 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”.

I meant 'Applies to', 'Inherited', 'Media' and 'Computed value'.

There must be a reason why the basically all spec. editors do it 
differently ‒ including 
[Tab's](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-animations/#animation) and 
[your](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-ui/#propdef-outline) 
specifications ‒ than what @tabatkins wrote in 
https://github.com/tabatkins/bikeshed/issues/734#issuecomment-228145238.

Sebastian

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by SebastianZ
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/223#issuecomment-228265045 
using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 24 June 2016 06:03:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 19 October 2021 01:30:20 UTC