- From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 10:09:09 +0100
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Okay, I think it makes sense. “CSS Variables” are called token stream references in [css-custom] for a while but I didn’t take care of replacing those paragraphs properly. I support this change. ---------------------------------------- > Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:02:24 -0800 > From: dbaron@dbaron.org > To: www-style@w3.org > Subject: [css-variables] references to "component value" > > There are two references to the term "component value" that have > crept back in to the css-variables editor's draft since the last > working draft. I thought we'd agreed (multiple times, I think) that > this wasn't the approach we were taking. Instead, we are using > token stream substitution, because it is possible to describe in a > way that can lead to interoperable implementations without > all-but-one of the implementations having to rewrite. > > In particular, I'd suggest replacing: > # A variable can be used in place of any component value in any > # property on an element. > with: > # A variable can be used in place of any part of a value in any > # property on an element. > > and replacing: > # Similarly, you can't build up a single component value where > # part of it is provided by a variable: > with: > # Similarly, you can't build up a single token where part of it is > # provided by a variable: > > -David > > -- > 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 > 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 >
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2012 09:09:39 UTC