- From: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:36:33 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Etan Wexler wrote: > > > > The incorrect value definition follows. > > > > Value: none | [<color> || <length> <length> <length>? ,]* [<color> || > > <length> <length> <length>?] | inherit > > > > [...] I suggest the following, which corrects both problems. > > > > Value: none | [ <shadow> , ]* <shadow> | inherit > > > > where <shadow> is > > [ <length> <length> <length>? <color>? | > > <color> <length> <length> <length>? ] > > Excluding the comma problem, which is indeed known (but thanks > anyway!) what is the difference between the current spec and your > proposal? I don't really understand what you are fixing... Currently, you can set color without setting the offset, but the prose requires the offset lengths. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/about.html#property-defs || means and/or (in any order) So I can have a color, or the offset lengths (and optional blur), or both. I'm not supposed to be able to set a color without any offset lengths. By explicitly specifying the two possible positions for <color>, Etan is removing the <color>-only option.
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2001 01:34:06 UTC