- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 23:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
- To: www-style@w3.org
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 Daggett
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 06:49:50 UTC