- 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