W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2011

Re: CSS Variables Draft Proposal

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:24:18 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTim7OGD0xbQo0vizkV=50yBX__65xFdrM4itpVck@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:02 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> On Monday 2011-02-14 16:28 -0500, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> Offhand, I wouldn't be willing to claim that the same string is
>> always treated as the same kind of "value" in Gecko, even.  It might
>> well be context-dependent.  I'm not saying that's the case; just
>> that nothing ensures that it's not.
> A few cases where it's not in Gecko, described mostly in terms of
> the value types in http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#values
> and elsewhere in CSS 2.1:

Right, I'm well aware that there's massive ambiguity problems with
trying to determine the type of a value simply from the value.

Anyway, I think the distinctions I want to make are captured at the
end of the draft, in the "Stricter Requirements on Variable Syntax"
section.  I need to nail down syntax for each, but the intent should
be clear.

>> I agree that a raw token stream may not be the right thing due to
>> things like:
>>   @var foo 255, 255);
>> which could add pretty oddly if $foo is used like so:
>>   color: rgb(0, $foo, 0);
> FWIW, what I'd want is a token stream that has balanced (), {}, and
> [], and of course no ; at top-level (not within the (), {}, or []).


Received on Monday, 14 February 2011 23:31:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:56 UTC