- From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 16:17:09 +0100
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
> The use of the value production from 2.1 isn't desirable in any case.
> What we actually want to do is simply say that it has no grammar -
> that every possible property value is valid for a custom property.
> That way, the only limitation is what is automatically imposed by the
> parser itself.
My issue is that browsers do not seem to follow any spec for their property value syntax (because the CSS Syntax is more permissive than any non-custom property need, and inexplicably complex).
The 'value' grammar doesn't make any sense to me: it seem to accept {a:a} but not {'a':'a'} or {a}. It should accept [;;] but not {;;}. I would like the value tokenization to be redefined to be more understandable and independant of other productions like 'block', 'declaration' and 'property'.
(BTW, sorry for the first email being in poorly-generated HTML, I should have asked Outlook to use Text-only before sending, seems like I forgot this time).
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 15:17:40 UTC