- From: andruud via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 11:04:29 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
+1 to @cdoublev's proposal. > I'm not too concerned with the potential "auto" conflict for animation names (seems like a very unlikely name) It appears that `auto` is indeed an unlikely name. Querying HTTP Archive, I found only a _single case_ (out of ~12.9 million) with `@keyframes` named `auto`. So the estimated risk seems low, and any problems can be trivially fixed by the author anyway. > 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 That claim can be easily satisfied by explicitly specifying `auto` (thus making other hypothetical auto's reachable)? I don't get why we need to introduce minor weirdness in this particular case, when "greedy claim" seems to be the default mode of any shorthand. -- GitHub Notification of comment by andruud Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8656#issuecomment-1516134795 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 20 April 2023 11:04:31 UTC