- From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 22:53:19 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
TR [ [ top | bottom ] | [ <percentage> | <length> | left | center | right ] [ <percentage> | <length> | top | center | bottom ]? | [ center | [ left | right ] [ <percentage> | <length> ]? ] && [ center | [ top | bottom ] [ <percentage> | <length> ]? ] ] ED (modified as per Tab below) [ [ left | center | right | top | bottom | <percentage> | <length> ] | [ left | center | right | <percentage> | <length> ] [ top | center | bottom | <percentage> | <length> ] | [ center | [ left | right ] [ <percentage> | <length> ]? ] && [ center | [ top | bottom ] [ <percentage> | <length> ]? ] ] Marking the sub-clauses... TR (A) [ top | bottom ] (B) [ <percentage> | <length> | left | center | right ] [ <percentage> | <length> | top | center | bottom ]? (C) [ center | [ left | right ] [ <percentage> | <length> ]? ] && [ center | [ top | bottom ] [ <percentage> | <length> ]? ] ED(m) (A) [ left | center | right | top | bottom | <percentage> | <length> ] (B) [ left | center | right | <percentage> | <length> ] [ top | center | bottom | <percentage> | <length> ] (C) [ center | [ left | right ] [ <percentage> | <length> ]? ] && [ center | [ top | bottom ] [ <percentage> | <length> ]? ] TRC and EDmC match, so let's ignore those for the moment. Unless I'm misreading it, (A) has become more complicated just so 1 character can be removed from (B). Tab, why is the ED version of (A)+(B) considered an improvement over the TR version of (A)+(B)? Shouldn't it be demonstrably better to be worth changing? > -----Original Message----- > From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 8:04 PM > To: www-style list > Subject: [css3-background] Further correction to the <position> grammar > > Lea Verou and I were working on fixing the <position> grammar to be > more readable. We finally came up with a simple, easy, and completely > correct version, but before we posted it, I happened to look at the > ED, and noticed that the grammar there was *exactly what we came up > with*, except with an extra, superfluous clause. > > So, the grammar currently in the ED should remove its second clause - > it's completely subsumed by the fourth clause. > > ~TJ >
Received on Sunday, 22 January 2012 22:54:03 UTC