- From: Matthew Ström via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 20:23:57 +0000
- To: public-design-tokens-log@w3.org
Returning to this after a bit of experience working with composite types, I think that we should have: 1. Implicit types for properties specifically covered by the spec. eg, the spec may define the shadow type to be composed of a specific set of properties. This makes authoring more pleasant at the expense of some parser logic; however, it is unambiguous. 2. Explicit types for anything not covered by the spec. eg, composites token might be "openly defined," allowing an author to add any number of relevant properties to the token beyond a certain required set. for this to work, the author should provide explicit types so that the token translator can correctly translate the token. -- GitHub Notification of comment by ilikescience Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/design-tokens/community-group/issues/199#issuecomment-1863424245 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 19 December 2023 20:24:00 UTC