Re: [css3-values][css-variables] definition of <value>

(12/07/09 22:53), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu
> <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>> (12/04/24 4:01), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Sorry about not spotting this earlier, but isn't toggle() back with the
>> same issue:
>>
>> (12/04/06 9:44), Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote:
>>> 1. can <value> contain ',' ? If yes, how is syntax ambiguity resolved
>>> within a cycle() ?
>>
>> with s/cycle/toggle/
>>
>> The description of toggle() has a note saying
>>
>>   # Note that because toggled values are separated by commas, they
>>   # cannot themselves include top-level commas.
>>
>> Why can't we make this normative? Otherwise, you can just add a
>> normative statement for UA saying toggle()'s content is parsed by
>> splitting at commas.
> 
> It's not normative because the definition falls out of the grammar if
> you avoid ambiguity.

I am sorry but I am not getting this sentence...

Am I right that this issue isn't addressed? Or at least it shouldn't be
OutOfScope just because the name of the functional notation changes.

If you think this is an unimportant issue or you would rather defer that
to level level, I think you should record this as a Rejected or Deferred
instead.

> The note is just there as a reminder to authors.

I always assume a spec would have the same normative meaning with all
the notes removed. Am I just missing a normative statement somewhere?



Cheers,
Kenny

Received on Monday, 9 July 2012 15:08:32 UTC