- From: Sebastian Zartner via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 06:03:41 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@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