- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2023 21:51:21 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> do we have a precedent of values that can't be explicitly defined? And only be declared as their default value if they're omitted?
Yes, there are a number of them. Whole properties might not be specificiable ("reset-only sub-properties"), and within properties that are specificable, there are several where longhands can express a combination that can't be written in the serialization. (My brain refuses to cough up an example, but it's the whole reason we have the "serialize as empty string" behavior for shorthands in CSSOM.)
-------
For the issue at hand, I'm not too concerned with the potential "auto" conflict for animation names (seems like a very unlikely name), but I am more concerned about this being the only property that *currently* takes an auto keyword, and it claiming that keyword in the shorthand for the future, when it doesn't even need it (due to that being the initial value).
I'm usually against values that can only be expressed via absence, but in this case I think it's fine.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8656#issuecomment-1495032085 using your GitHub account
--
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 3 April 2023 21:51:23 UTC