- From: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:36:28 +0100
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:35:38 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> > wrote: >> 1) >> The value type of 'column-rule-color' is <color>, whereas the >> 'column-rule' >> shorthand also accepts the 'transparent' keyword. Presumably the keyword >> should be allowed in both cases? If so, the 'column-rule-color' entry >> could >> say "<color> | transparent" and 'column-rule' could say >> "<'column-rule-width'> || <'column-rule-style'> || >> <'column-rule-color'>". > > This is likely simply a result of Multicol not explicitly depending on > Colors Level 3, where transparent is a valid value for <color>. > > We had a discussion a few months ago about this, which didn't come to > a conclusion that satisfied me, but essentially it was decided to just > leave it with a reference to CSS2.1, but allow implementors to use the > Colors Level 3 if they wished. When Colors reaches an appropriate > level on the Rec track, Multicol will have its reference updated. Yes, it looks like the inconsistencies started when level 3 colors were introduced. Then my suggestion still seems right, and when multicol updates its <color> reference to level 3, the " | transparent" part can be removed. -- Øyvind Stenhaug Core Norway, Opera Software ASA
Received on Friday, 19 March 2010 14:36:15 UTC