- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
fantasai wrote: > I don't think it makes sense to allow mutually exclusive values in > the syntax and then ignore one of them. We overwrite earlier > declarations with later declarations, but I don't know of any other > property in which an earlier *value* is ignored when overwritten by > a later value in the same declaration. I'd rather make it invalid, > so that the author has a clue that something's not quite right > (because the UA throws out the whole rule) and so that the validator > can catch what's almost certainly an authoring error. I think this makes sense. The definition for the font-variant shorthand will become a slightly enormous production because of the expanded out list of values but I agree allowing validators to catch problems early is important.
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2010 20:04:28 UTC