- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:38:07 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote: > One major CSS3 module [1] starts with the following statement: > > "All properties defined in this specification also accept the inherit keyword as their > property value, but for readability it has not been listed explicitly." > > Others, [2][3] include inherit in the syntax definition of each property. > > An increasing number of modules appear to do neither [4][5][6] do not. This is causing some > confusion as there is no way to tell whether this is deliberate or not. > > My preference is for the simple, unambiguous approach followed by Color [2] and Fonts [3]. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/ > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/ > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-fonts/ > [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-transitions/ > [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-images/ > [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-flexbox/ My preference is to not have to mention anything - the global keywords are defined in Values & Units as applying to all properties, and we shouldn't have to worry about that detail otherwise (unless the property accepts arbitrary user-defined keywords, in which case you have to explicitly prevent those from being valid values). If that's not good enough, I prefer adding a line to the boilerplate like what B&B has. This is almost as good as every spec ignoring it. I really don't want every property to have to include " | inherit | initial" in its value definition. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 27 October 2011 18:38:55 UTC