Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-syntax-3] Should `<declaration-value>` embed semantics? (#11296)

Sorry, I'm not entirely certain what is being asked for here.

> From an author's perspective, it can be confusing that `background-image: var(--url, url(bad token))` is valid but not `background-image: var(--url, invalid)`

Did you mean *in*valid here? Or just mean to put them in the other order? The first one is invalid, the second one is valid.

`url()` is just a weird legacy situation for a few reasons. I'd prefer to keep bad-urls invalid.

CSS's rules about matching the paired delimiters ()[]{} are also pretty sacrosanct and valuable to preserve. I don't want to allow them to show up unpaired, and *definitely* don't want to allow them to match up *across different variable substitutions*.

So all that's left is whether `<declaration-value>` can validly match nothing. It currently requires *something*, and appending a `?` allows it to match nothing. If we changed it to allow matching nothing, tho, then *nothing* we could put into the grammar would allow us to indicate it has to match *something*; it would always have to be a prose condition.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11296#issuecomment-2657829797 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Thursday, 13 February 2025 22:19:44 UTC