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

Re: [css-variables] Syntax of custom property declarations

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 13:37:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBcEyWDZv4mqdYby0aYLjW2B8e9Hi3o1mAnkBmW-Qx+rA@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:02 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> It's unstable because you're still working on it and fixing all the
> issues people are bringing up and checking it against CSS2.1. And
> adding prose that's incompatible with CSS2.1/Selectors3 and getting
> concerns from the WG about whether that's actually a good idea. No,
> it is not a stable spec. It merely aspires to be a stable spec; it
> is *not there yet* and I don't think it's a good idea for us to be
> referencing it from Variables, which you intend to put in CR very
> soon.
>
> The stable definition of CSS syntax is in CSS2.1. It is not as
> detailed and precise as your spec. But at least it is known to be
> reasonably accurate and stable.

Reread my text that you were originally responding about: "A
Syntax-based definition of the value is simply "(anything, see
prose)", with the prose informatively explaining some of the implicit
restrictions that arise from the parser.".

That is *not* "I'm going to switch right now to describing it solely
in terms of the Syntax spec.".

Like Simon said, the Syntax-based definition is just clearer and
easily to understand than the CSS 2.1-based definition.  The current
2.1-based definition appears to be unwittingly incomplete, excluding
cdo/cdc anywhere but the top level of the property.  (And the overall
2.1 grammar appears to exclude cdo/cdc tokens *entirely* from property
definitions, for no particular reason.)

~TJ
Received on Monday, 20 May 2013 20:38:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:30 UTC