Re: [css3-fonts] font-variant-numeric

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