- From: Guillaume via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2025 13:06:11 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I knew about this distinction (and the inconsistencies between browsers, with #9363 as the most relevant related issue) but I forgot about it when creating this issue. As far as I know, it is unspecified while idempotency is specified, so I always have this requirement in my mind whenever I see some parsed value to be output as a string. --- My second comment is confusing, sorry. The first two points result from a misreading of the spec. And I no longer see the point of registering custom function parameters as custom properties, but I am still interested to know why normalizing types to `<syntax-string>` or `type(<syntax-string>)` is preferred over a chain of one or more `<syntax-component>`s (wrapped in `type()` in `.cssText` only when required). -- GitHub Notification of comment by cdoublev Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11908#issuecomment-2930624334 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 2 June 2025 13:06:12 UTC