Re: [css3-fonts] @font-feature-values editorial



On 6/5/13 6:50 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:53 PM, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> fantasai wrote:
>>>    # Feature value blocks are treated similar to at-rules,
>>>    # they consist of everything up to the next block or
>>>    # semi-colon, whichever comes first.
>>>
>>> This makes no sense. It *is* an at-rule, it isn't treated
>>> similar to one.
>>
>> Sorry but I disagree here, these value definitions take the form of
>> @-rules but they are not @-rules.  Other @-rules have a defined set of
>> descriptors, these do not, I want to be careful to distinguish the
>> two.  It's a simple use of terminology I think that helps prevent
>> confusion with other "real" @-rules.  At a syntax level, they are
>> roughly equivalent but not entirely so (e.g. user-defined "descriptors"
>>that
>> are case sensitive).
>
>At a syntax level, or rather a Syntax level, they're at-rules, end of
>story.  There's no reason to distinguish them from "real" at-rules,
>because there's no such distinction - at-rules have all sorts of crazy
>rules for what can be put inside of them.

Right; they will be parsed and error handled as such. John does not seem
to think
of them as such though. I'm not yet quite sure how the difference matters
for the user
- more awkward CSSOM for at-rules? - but if the downsides of treating them
as at-rules
do not justify an alternative syntax then shouldn't they be at-rules?

Fwiw I doubt web developers will distinguish the two. (Most I've met think
of 
@font-face descriptors as properties and describe them that way, fwiw)

Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 15:14:15 UTC