- From: Ernest Cline <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:27:56 -0500
- To: "BIGELOW,JIM (HP-Boise,ex1)" <jim.bigelow@hp.com>
- Cc: "W3C CSS List" <www-style@w3.org>
> [Original Message] > From: BIGELOW,JIM (HP-Boise,ex1) <jim.bigelow@hp.com> Whoa there! I can see the reason (altho I disagree with it) for rejecting "auto" as an identifier, but not ALL keywords. Whether something that fits the production for an identifier happens to be a keyword will depend upon what portions of CSS it implements. Do you really want a standard that would require an as yet undefined keyword from a future CSS recommendation to be invalid? That is sure to lead to problems with interoperability. > Your issue (#44) shown below has been rejected. There are many uses of > "auto" in the CSS specification as a unique keyword that assumes specific > values and meanings that are unique to the property. So I don't think it is > right to, in this instance, say it is an identifier. However, it keeping > with the way the auto assumes property specific means, when used as a > keyword it could take on the meaning of the unnamed page context when used > with the page property. In keeping with "auto" being a polymorphic keyword > and not an identifier "@page auto" should be a syntax error in the same way > that "@page table-row" should be an error since auto or table-row are > keywords and not identifiers. > > If you have further comment on this issue, you have seven days, until Feb. > 17, 2004 to reply. > > -- Jim Bigelow, editor > > Your issue: > > In the 'page' property is the value of "auto" to be treated > > as identifier or not?
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2004 10:28:17 UTC