W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2013

Re: [css-variables] when validity of variable reference syntax is checked

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 16:37:41 +1100
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAWnqOeXgsp=sNq9VEqu8DCG7UH6W9AdK-2qpO788RHLw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:
> It's not clear to me whether a property value that contains variable
> references should have its variable reference syntax checked at specified
> value time or at computed value time, and whether certain things should be
> considered errors at all.
> Section 3 says:
>   A property value containing a variable must be assumed to be valid at
>   parse time. It is only syntax-checked at computed-value time, after
>   variable references have been resolved.
> What constitutes a value "containing a variable"?  Consider:
>   p { color: var(1); }
> Does that contain a variable?  It has a var() function, though it doesn't
> match the syntax for var() in the spec.  Should the property be invalid at
> specified value time, since there are no syntactically valid var()
> references?
> How about:
>   p { color: var(a) var(1); }
> Now there is at least one syntactically valid variable reference, but there
> is also one that isn't.  Should the "var(1)" be treated as just more tokens
> to be stored away and to be parsed at computed value time, or should it
> cause the value of 'color' to be invalid at specified value time?  It's the
> same as:
>   p { var-a: var(1); }
> The " var(1)" here matches <any-value>, so should it be valid at specified
> value time?
> Similarly for cases like:
>   p { color: var(a) var(b,!); }
> which uses "!" invalidly at the top level of an <any-value>.
> What I ended up implementing was that regular properties that contain any
> var() function at all must match the grammar for valid var() functions, in
> addition to matching <any-value> overall.  So all the cases above would be
> invalid at specified value time.
> Can this be clarified in the spec?

Ooh, very good catch.  Depending on how you interpret things, this is
already specified (something isn't a var() function if it doesn't
match the grammar), but I'm happy to clarify it.

I think I've finally got my laptop fixed just now, so I'll actually be
able to make the changes I've been promising to make for the last week

Received on Monday, 9 December 2013 05:38:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:37 UTC