- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:31:22 -0700
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote: > Le 24/06/2013 22:16, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :] >> The term "specified value" has always been confusing, because it does >> *not* refer to the value the author specified. Instead, it's always >> referred to the value that starts the standard value-computation >> chain, at the point where a given element has a value for every >> property. >> >> Ironically, we don't actually *have* a term for the value the author >> actually specified in the stylesheet, or the close-enough concept of >> what CSSStyleDeclaration returns. >> >> Private conversation with dbaron (in #css) led to the following >> suggestions: >> >> 1. Use "declared value" for the value of a declaration; that is, what >> is returned when you query CSSStyleDeclaration. This is not >> associated with any particular element, and may not have a value for >> every property. >> >> 2. Drop the term "specified value", and slightly modify Cascade so >> that "cascaded value" fills the role. This just requires us to >> slightly change the verbiage around how we handle the global keywords; >> currently, the "cascaded value" may be empty or resolve to one of the >> global keywords. We'd change it so that as part of the computation of >> the cascaded value, we guarantee that we fill in a value, and resolve >> away the global keywords. (Our current use of "cascaded value" in the >> spec is unobservable from the outside, and we can just lean on the >> term "result of the cascade" to represent the value that might be >> empty or might be a global keyword.) >> >> Thoughts? > > > This sounds good, but when doing the edits please add a note near the > definitions that explains the old terms, for people reading CSS 2.1 or > mailing list archives. Absolutely. > By the we, should we errata 2.1 for such editorial but fundamental changes? Yes. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2013 17:32:09 UTC