- From: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:41:42 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Tab said: > Florian said: >> Tab said: >>> For the first issue (regarding whether to use an ident or an >>> function-with-ident), just use an ident and define a few special >>> values as not overwritable by authors (specifically, "none", >>> "initial", "inherit", and any other global values we end up creating). >> >> Sounds fine to me. >> >> And if the author overrides an existing keyword that can be used as a >> value >> of text-transform (eg: uppercase), the author's definition wins? > > Yeah. Draft updated. >> <urange>s are neat. I didn't know about them, and they definitely >> make sense here. That said, maybe we should also keep the literal >> character notation, as "a","z" (or the "a":"z" variant) is a lot >> more readable than U+41-5A. > > Both of the literal variants seem problematic, unfortunately. The > first uses commas with a different precedence than normal (ordinarily, > spaces bind tighter than commas), and the second uses a brand-new > character that we haven't used as a separator before. uranges do exactly what I need, so I could live with them. At the same time, they are not very human-readable, and it bothers me more here and in @font. Do you have a proposal of a literal variant that would play nicer with existing things? - Florian
Received on Monday, 5 December 2011 15:42:14 UTC