- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:00:01 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
> I suspect the intent was that 'border-color' has a {1,4} line that
> isn't valid here, so it deferred to the most specific type of rule.
> It just did so inconsistently, as 'border-width' and 'border-style'
> also have {1,4} in their productions.
Right.
>
> > CSS3 Backgrounds & Borders defines the border shorthand as:
> >
> > <border-width> || <border-style> || <color>
>
> Yup, it goes ahead and defers to Color Level 3, where 'transparent' is
> a color. No need to try and shorten productions by defining "<color>
> | transparent" in one place and then reusing that production over and
> over.
I'd rather have border-color refer to <color> and remain specific here,
for legibility. Otherwise, it should also be <width>, not <border-width>.
Not that I have a major problem with this. It just invites unnecessary
questions as is.
Received on Saturday, 20 March 2010 00:00:49 UTC