- From: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 19:28:16 +0300
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 5/5/12 19:16, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > So the set of possible values would be: > normal > alternate > reverse > alternate reverse > reverse alternate Yes. > Is that right? I can see how I no longer need to remember whether alternate > comes first or last but if it looks like a toggle then I'd also expect > alternate normal to do something and it wouldn't. So while there is a bit of > extra user-friendliness it seems specific to this one keyword. Or did I get > the intent and grammar wrong? My proposed grammar left combinations of `normal` and the other keywords out, but I don’t have a strong opinion on it. I think we need more input about whether such combinations facilitate learning or confuse authors. Functionality-wise, they are completely redundant, so consistency and learnability are the only possible benefits. To be clear, we’re talking about these 4 combinations: alternate normal normal alternate reverse normal normal reverse Consistency-wise, I think existing CSS properties usually allow `normal` to be combined with other keywords, as long as disambiguation is possible. For example, the following declaration is perfectly valid (albeit needlessly verbose), even in CSS1: font: normal normal normal 100%/normal normal; -- Lea Verou (http://lea.verou.me | @LeaVerou)
Received on Saturday, 5 May 2012 16:28:48 UTC