(12/04/24 4:40), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu > <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu> wrote: >> (12/04/24 4:01), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>> Heya Kenny! >>> >>> Below are the resolutions of the issues you raised in this thread. >>> >>> Issue 12: cycle() and values that have commas >>> Closed as OutOfScope pending WG resolution - we're proposing to punt >>> cycle() to the next level so we can address these and other issues >>> with cycle() more properly. >> >> Does this mean that <fallback> for attr() can contain commas? I have no >> problem with this but I should warn that something like "attr(x, 50%, >> 50%)" prevents us from having a third argument in the future (which I >> don't consider a big problem), not to mention that it is a big ugly. >> >> Assuming the above interpretation of the current draft (i.e. attr() can >> contain commas), I am satisfied with this as long as you editors are >> satisfied, but If the idea is to make the interpreation ambiguous at >> this level, I would like to request an explicit "undefined" about >> <fallback> in this regard. > > Yup, commas are allowed in the fallback. OK. I am satisfied then. > We believe we can work around any issues in the future with adding more arguments. But now I am confused by this sentence. How do you add more arguments to attr() if <fallback> allows commas? Cheers, KennyReceived on Monday, 23 April 2012 20:50:57 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:15 UTC