- From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:13:36 +0100
- To: W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
Somebody (I got the comment second-hand, so I don't know who) was bothered by an inconsistency in two of the examples in section 4.2[1]. The example under "Malformed declarations" states that p { color:red; color; color:green } is equivalent to p { color:green } The example under "Unexpected end of string" states that p { color: green; font-family: 'Courier New Times color: red; color: green; } would be treated the same as: p { color: green; color: green; } Both examples are correct. But in the first example, the syntactically valid but meaningless 'color: red' is omitted from the "equivalent" rule; while in the second example, the equally valid and meaningless 'color: green' is present in the "treated the same" rule. I can see how the examples can confuse people who expected the section to define some sort of normalization algorithm for CSS style sheets. We can maybe try to add more examples in the CSS3 Syntax module to avoid that expectation. But every change to the text of CSS 2.1 risks introducing new errors and delays. So I propose we don't change CSS 2.1. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#parsing-errors Bert -- Bert Bos ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/ http://www.w3.org/people/bos W3C/ERCIM bert@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 14:14:17 UTC