Re: [css3-fonts] @font-feature-values syntax

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 2:49 PM, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

I see only negatives from trying to be different, and no positives.


> 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.
>

I haven't seen anyone advocate A, but I've seen a number in favor of B.
Let's just go with B.