fantasai wrote: > Variation A is the one in the draft. It looks like this: > > @font-feature-values Mars Serif { > @styleset alt-g 1, > curly-quotes 3, > code 4 5; > @styleset dumb 25; > @swash swishy 3 5; > } > > Variation B uses a syntax similar to standard rule sets: > > @font-feature-values Mars Serif { > styleset { alt-g: 1; > curly-quotes: 3; > code: 4 5; } > styleset { dumb: 25; } > swash { swishy: 3 5; } > } > > The primary benefit of Variation A is that it's slightly more > compact, since it doesn't use curly braces. > > The primary benefit of Variation B is that the cascading behavior of > the name bindings behaves exactly as you would expect from the > syntax: exactly as if the feature type were an element type > selector, and the name declarations were property declarations. The primary motivation behind variation A is not just compactness but having a syntax that's very distinct from normal property rules. Variation B looks like a bunch of property rules, authors would easily mistake it for a set of properties (e.g. 'alt-g', 'code') that apply to specific elements (e.g. 'styleset', 'swash'). That said, I'm not strongly opposed to B but I would like to resolve on this and not bikeshed on this again later. Regards, John DaggettReceived on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 06:49:50 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:20 UTC