- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:52:49 +0000 (GMT)
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 12 Sep 2002, Etan Wexler wrote: > > I object to the redefinition of the term "specified value". While CSS3 > *drafts* may be ambiguous about the term, the CSS2 *Recommendation* is > quite clear. We are trying to name the value in a winning declaration; > I suggest the term "declared value". > > While we could retain the term "specified value" in its current meaning, > the meanings of "specified" and "declared" are close enough to cause > confusion. I support the use of the term "cascaded value" to mean what > CSS2 calls "specified value". So in CSS3, you want "specified" and "cascaded" to mean the same thing? > > Cascaded Value (the result of the cascade, after handling any > > inheritance, initial values, and attr() forms -- defined for all > > properties and all elements and pseudo-elements) > > Does replacement of 'attr()' forms really take place during assignment > of cascaded values? Why replace 'attr()' forms then instead of during > assignment of computed values? The value extracted out of attr() could require further computation, e.g. if it is a percentage. > Some properties may inherit from cascaded values, rather than from > computed values. Not in CSS3. It is the intention of the WG (as I understand it) to make sure that the computed value is always the one inherited. -- Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL "meow" /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 09:52:50 UTC