- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kanghaol@oupeng.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 02:12:32 +0800
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- CC: WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
(12/09/05 7:36), Alan Stearns wrote: > First, if I'm considering the use of <shape> in CSS3 Exclusions and Shapes > (with rectangle() etc.) to be an extension of CSS2.1 <shape> (that only > has rect()) do I need to accept a rect() value in CSS3 Exclusions and > Shapes usage, I am not sure I understand your question here. If CSS3 Exclusions and Shapes doesn't accept rect(), what's the point of "extending" CSS 2.1 <shape>? > or is it OK to limit this new usage to the new value list? > If rect() is not allowed as a value for shape-outside, do I need to use a > different term? Not necessary. You can instead state the extra restriction in prose. However, that's somewhat hard to read and why people ask for <positive-number>. > Second, should CSS3 Images use some other term - since the serialization > of the keywords in that spec will not match the 2.1 serialization? I think so. CSSOM needs to spec how <image> is serialized eventually. (12/09/05 8:17), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > More generally, should we define a generic prefix for grammar > productions that are "local", and only intended to be used within a > particular spec? For example, radial-gradient() could instead use a > <~shape> production, which doesn't interact with the <shape> > production, or with other definitions of <~shape> in other specs. Yuk, but I am not going to have any strong opinion about a meta-syntax. Cheers, Kenny -- Web Specialist, Oupeng Browser, Beijing Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2012 18:13:04 UTC