- From: andruud via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2024 18:55:52 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> The second, tho, is unresolvable. In `if(foo(): bar, baz(): qux)`, `baz(): qux` is a perfectly valid `<declaration-value>`! So it's impossible to tell whether it was meant to be "two clauses with no catch-all, evaluating to either `bar`, `qux`, or IACVT" or "one clause with a catch-all, evaluating to either `foo` or `baz(): qux`". My optional-else proposal tries `<cond> ':' <declaration-value>` _first_, and if that matches, treats it as a clause, even if the whole thing _also_ matches `<declaration-value>`. So this example would be "two clauses with no catch-all" (given a reasonable behavior for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10818). If you want it the other way, you'd prefix with `else:`. Though it might need to be `[ <cond> ':' <declaration-value-without-colon> ] | <declaration-value>`. So basically any catch-all value with a `:` requires an `else:`. -- GitHub Notification of comment by andruud Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10064#issuecomment-2327206327 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2024 18:55:53 UTC