Re: Strawman proposal for tweaking background shorthand syntax to address position/size complexity

On 11.5.09 10:04, Bert Bos wrote:
> Do you have any opinion on the alternative syntax with parentheses that
> I mentioned earlier[1]?
>      <bg-layer>  =<bg-image>  ||<bg-position>  || (<bg-size>  ) ||
>        <repeat>  ||<attachment>  ||<bg-origin>  || no-clip
>      <final-bg-layer>  =<bg-image>  [ /<color>  ]? ||
>        <bg-position>  || (<bg-size>  ) ||<repeat>  ||<attachment>  ||
>        <bg-origin>  || no-clip ||<bg-color>

(Prefatory note: I wasn't on this list until just prior to my initial message, hence the absence of any comments in the past.)

It sat ill with me at first glance, but it does less so the more I look at it.  It seems reasonable, although "like" would be too strong a descriptive term.

> Or the functional notation
>      <bg-layer>  = ... size(<bg-size>  ) ...
> that somebody else suggested[2]?

Functional seems wrong given that so far, to the best of my knowledge, functions have always been reasonably generic in their uses.  I could imagine uses for this, to be sure, but this seems like a notable deviation from existing syntaxes that's neither necessary nor in good style.


Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 09:37:06 UTC