Re: [community-group] Implicit vs. explicit typing in composite tokens (#199)

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