RE: prefixed values(RE: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions Paris F2F Monday Morning 2012-02-06: Administrivia, Vendor Prefixes, Property/Value Alias OM)

Given the current design of CSS holistically, and backgrounds specifically, properties interact.  Property and value treatments w/r/t prefixes need to be consistent, or at least compatible.

I've only skimmed the notes so far, but there's also the issue of "equivalent values" in "all variants" is not always constructible (much less necessarily desirable) given that grammars change as the spec evolves (read: features come and go).  So in many cases this requirement isn't even theoretically possible, much less practical.

-Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 5:18 AM
> To: Alex Mogilevsky
> Cc: www-style@w3.org; Brian Manthos
> Subject: Re: prefixed values(RE: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions Paris
> F2F Monday Morning 2012-02-06: Administrivia, Vendor Prefixes,
> Property/Value Alias OM)
> 
> On 02/08/2012 10:49 AM, Alex Mogilevsky wrote:
> >> From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 9:41 AM
> >>
> >>     RESOLVED: When a browser supports multiple syntaxes of a single
> property,
> >>               they're treated as aliases in the cascade, such that
> last
> >>               wins. In the OM, *all* variants show up, with
> equivalent
> >>               values, regardless of which version was specified or
> which
> >>               won.
> >
> > As Brian points out,
> >
> > 	The naïve proposal forgets about, for example, prefixed *values*
> > 	(such as gradient<image>).
> 
> The proposal described in that resolution is restricted to properties.
> This was not unintentional.
> 
> ~fantasai

Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 20:09:17 UTC