- From: Simetrical <simetrical@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 18:48:26 -0400
- To: "Brad Kemper" <brkemper@comcast.net>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "David Hyatt" <hyatt@apple.com>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net> wrote: > IIRC, "orange" was a little bit different on a couple different browsers I > tried. Surely not modern ones, the ones that might actually implement this spec? The value of orange has been specified for ages, hasn't it? > And I fully expect that the CMYK values would vary for printing, if > that has never been agreed upon. So it would also be nice to have a print > style sheet in which they could be given a CMYK value. Well, better to have that defined in some fashion by the spec. > I disagree that the functional notation is very CSS-y. It seems more > JavaScripty to me. So far I haven't had to use it very much at all in my CSS > (I know it is in clip and a couple of CSS3 properties). Functional notation "currently" (in CSS3 drafts or earlier) seems to be used for: attr(), url(), counter(), calc(), rgb()/rgba()/hsl()/hsla(), and probably several other things. It seems to basically be used for any type of value that must encompass a wide range of values, and that doesn't naturally use some kind of suffix notation (px, em, %, etc.). It is kind of ugly and hard to type, though, I agree. > How about the equals sign? It can be typed quicker, plus it has a certain > logic to it since it is often used for assignment in other languages: > background: =backgroundColor; Seems unnecessarily opaque. If we're going with sigils of some kind, the dollar sign is the obvious choice.
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 22:49:08 UTC