- From: andruud via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2025 14:13:16 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> 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). I'm still confused. The spec is already intended to give the results shown in your [table](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11908#issuecomment-2717443731). Or perhaps this is related to what you asked about earlier: > I would have thought that representing a syntax as a `<string>` would become legacy. [and instead we should "serialize a css type"] I guess that is roughly the same question as in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12258. If we end up serializing the idents out of the `name` attributes, then it seems consistent to also "serialize a css type" out of the `type` attributes. Otherwise, I think I'd like to stay consistent with `registerProperty`, though I don't have a very strong opinion about it. -- GitHub Notification of comment by andruud Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11908#issuecomment-2930932638 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 14:13:17 UTC