Re: Supporting propriety "Extensions"

>> ....BTW: my question about vendor specific units left unanswered.
>> What to do?
>
> Use _foo_%% I guess. (Where 'foo' represents your company.) Or -foo-%%.

Thanks for advice, Anne, but CSS grammar[1] treats units as part of value
and all possible combinations are listed literaly there.

And no one human would understand the meaning of
calc( 10px-100-TerraInformaticaSoftwareInc-%% )
without taking glass of vodka first.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/grammar.html

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anne van Kesteren" <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 2:08 PM

> Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>> And what is the main reason of separating vendor-specific
>> extensions (VSE) "Keywords and property names, beginning with -' or '_' 
>> are
>> reserved for vendor-specific extensions."?
>>
>> Anyway CSS parser already knows how to deal with something like:
>> width: expression(my cool script goes here);
>> and unknown attributes.
>>
>> So what is the point? I cannot see any technical reasons for such a 
>> strange way of
>> VSE separations.
>
> This addresses the future, not now. So that vendor extensions are not 
> going to conflict with new W3C CSS specifications.
>
>
>> I mean these '-' and '_' are only half of the problem - as this rule is 
>> about identifiers only.
>> There could be even different syntactic vendor specific constructions 
>> (everybody know examples I guess)
>> or even different length units as in our case (%%). BTW: my question 
>> about vendor specific units left unanswered.
>> E.g. someone would want to use something like "physical-pixel" instead of 
>> current "logical-pixel" and the like...
>> What to do?
>
> Use _foo_%% I guess. (Where 'foo' represents your company.) Or -foo-%%.
>
>
> -- 
>  Anne van Kesteren
>  <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
>

Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 00:06:27 UTC