- From: L. David Baron via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 19:03:00 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I'd assume that the argument syntax validation would match what's done [for `@property`](https://drafts.css-houdini.org/css-properties-values-api/#the-syntax-descriptor). If that's the case, I don't immediately see anything that would make this *particularly* difficult. One issue that might (but I'm not sure) be difficult (although maybe more for designing/specifying the feature than for implementing it) is determining *when* the functions are resolved. (Does it work like `calc()` and depend on what the arguments are?) The syntax you propose seems generally reasonable, although there are various ways it could be changed. For example, I probably wouldn't do both of requiring `--` for the arguments *and* requiring references to them be in an `arg()` function, but we probably do want at least one or the other, or something like them. (I think I'd lean towards not using the `--`, and keeping `arg()`.) There's also a question of whether this could interact with features like `inherit`, `initial`, or more advanced extensions like that proposed in #2864. (That is, whether the `result` could use those things.) -- GitHub Notification of comment by dbaron Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7490#issuecomment-1182293887 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2022 19:03:02 UTC