- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 11:29:18 -0800
- To: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:17 AM, François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote: >> 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'. Since that's what I just said, obviously I agree. ^_^ Once browsers match Syntax, they'll be able to do a reasonable value for the grammar of custom properties. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 19:30:05 UTC