W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > March 2018

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-shadow-parts] decide on forwarding micro-syntax for partmap

From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:03:09 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-376293461-1522094588-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Again, the parsing isn't any harder. This is seriously a non-issue, parsing-wise.  Whether or not to use any sort of separator token is purely a matter of making it easier to use/understand.  "We don't need it" is a reasonable argument against; "this is hard to parse" is not.

The reasoning behind the arrow is that it tells you the direction of the forwarding/name change.  In `a => b`, it indicates that the part named "a" becomes the part named "b" in the outer scope.  However, I understand that in maps the direction is usually the other way; `a: b` would indicate that in your partmap, the part named `a` is equivalent to the subpart `b`.

I personally find `a b, c d` *completely* opaque, on the other hand. There's zero indication of what's happening there.

Perhaps `a as b, c as d`? The English connector suggests the meaning a little bit more, and has a clearer direction of association.

> What concrete use cases would need to do that?

A part, in general, can be given multiple names, and multiple parts can share the same name. (The semantics of a part-name are equivalent to a class.)  Exposing the same functionality in the part forwarding is thus necessary; it's what you could do if you were directly annotating the sub-parts as your own children.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2411#issuecomment-376293461 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 26 March 2018 20:04:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:26 UTC