- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 09:56:41 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org, "Simon Sapin" <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 09:32:50 +0200, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
wrote:
> Le 12/08/2013 08:22, John Daggett a écrit :
>>> .bar {
>>> margin: 1em;
>>> margin-left: 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Here, even though no two specified declarations have the same name,
>>> there is still some duplication in the longhands: the 'margin-left:
>>> 1em' declaration implied by the shorthand is ignored.
>> Sorry, I'm not seeing the need to distinguish longhand/shorthand here.
>> The resulting effect may be that the implied value for 'margin-left'
>> is different from what is implied by 'margin: 1em' but the spec
>> wording only seems to be talking about multiple declarations of the
>> same property, regardless of whether it's a shorthand or a longhand.
>
> Yes, exactly. And I think that wording is incorrect.
>
> Per the wording in the current ED, there is no duplication here because
> the two declarations do not have the same name. But the fact is there is
> some duplication and implementations do drop the "expanded"
> 'margin-left: 1em' declaration.
Indeed. This is observable in the CSSOM, and hence I need this to spec it
properly in CSSOM.
http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/2440
Also note the order of the declarations and compare with
http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/2441
--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Monday, 12 August 2013 07:51:50 UTC