- From: Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 21:34:15 -0400
- To: "John Daggett" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
Le Mar 15 mai 2012 20:41, John Daggett a écrit : > Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > >> > During the F2F, Bert stated that he thought this was a change from >> > CSS 2.1, that unquoted font family names like 'foo inherit' should >> > not be rejected as invalid. I don't really feel strongly either >> > way but I'm wondering if you see a strong reason to make the use >> > of any keyword within a multi-word font family name invalid. >> >> It *is* a change, but fantasai and I believe that it only >> unintentionally allowed them before. >> >> The reason to disallow it is to have a consistent story for where >> you can use 'inherit' and 'initial'. "Only as the sole value of a >> property" is easier to understand and teach than "only as the sole >> value of a property, or a *piece* of a font-family name, unless it >> conflicts with the former". > > If there aren't other situations where sequences of identifiers occur, > then I don't think there's really any great reduction in complexity > with this change, the language describing font families still needs to > describe how to merge together sequences of space-separated > identifiers and how to match these against font family names. By > simply saying that an unquoted font family name cannot be the same as > a reserved keyword, we can define the behavior unambiguously without > changing 2.1 behavior. > > I don't think this should be considered a 2.1 issue and we should > avoid adding unnecessary errata unless there's a *very* good reason to > do so. Keeping Bert happy is also a good thing. ;) > > Regards, > > John Daggett To John and Tab, Personally, I do not want to get involved into this discussion; in fact, I will accept whatever is decided. All I want to eventually know is: what is the decision so that I can update http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/font-family-rule-004a.xht and make it perfectly complying with CSS 2.1, section 15.3 and section 1.4.2.1. As far as I know, right now, font-family value: [ <string> | <ident>+ ]# | inherit and where <ident>: user-defined identifier acting as a component value which represents any valid CSS identifier that is not a pre-defined keyword in that property's value definition. 3.2. User-defined Identifiers: the ‘<identifier>’ type http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/#identifiers is the new CSS 2.1 syntax for font-family name. I want to be informed if anything changes about the above. Gérard -- CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011 http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/toc.html Contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/ Web authors' contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/web-authors-contributions-css21-testsuite.html
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 01:34:49 UTC