- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 21:05:26 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
In private conversation, @fantasai pointed out that, while this is nicely unambiguous, it's starting to get pretty heavy for simple cases. For example, to indicate that you want to parse the attribute as a number and interpret it as a px length, you'd write `attr(foo type(<number px>))`, where previously it was just `attr(foo px)`. She suggests going with the `type()` wrapper, but *also* still allowing a handful of keywords to indicate "simple" grammars. I suggest: * `string` for the "no interpretation, just the literal value as a string" case (currently indicated only by *omitting* the syntax arg) * `value` for "parse it as a single CSS component value" (automatically recognizing it as a length/angle/number/ident/etc) * `px`/`em`/etc for "parse it as a number, then give it that unit". This gives us the best of both worlds for this simple case. And I don't think it should extend to other users of `<syntax>`, like custom functions or custom properties - `string` value isn't meaningful for values already written in CSS, `value` imposes no meaningful restrictions so it's very nearly just `*` anyway, and `px`/etc are not a use-case we want to encourage in other places. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11035#issuecomment-2469019443 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 11 November 2024 21:05:27 UTC