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

Re: [css-fonts] Simplify the syntax definitions of @font-face and @font-feature-values

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 21:48:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBW-xVv5sQxsdVR5hJL0ftc7pD3ULQ4EhTvqKOJjr=4ug@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:14 PM, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Tab Atkins wrote:
>> It depends on Syntax as much as property grammars depend on Values -
>> not really at all, the given spec is just a convenient place to put
>> the definitions.
> Um, "a convenient place to put the definitions" and their precise
> definition is the very essense of "dependence"!!

My point is that nothing in the grammar section depends on Syntax.
It's not defining a CSS feature, just a way for us to *describe* CSS
features.  We could move it to the end-of-spec boilerplate, or the
wiki, or literally anywhere else, because it has no relevance for
conformance.  It's at the same level as the description of the
property grammars, or the description of the propdef table structure.

>> > Revision 2:
>> >
>> >> > @font-feature-values <'font-family'># { <rule-list> }
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, mistake from an earlier edit.  I meant:
>> >>
>> >> @font-feature-values <'font-family'> { <rule-list> }
>> >
>> > No, this doesn't work because generics can't be included and those
>> > would be included in <'font-family'>.
>> I don't see any such restriction in the spec - the token grammar just
>> uses font_family_list, and the paragraph following says it "uses the
>> same syntax as that used for the ‘font-family’ property".
> Look more carefully:
>     Only named font families are allowed for <font-family>, rules
>     that include generic or system fonts in the list of font
>     families are considered syntax errors and the contents of the
>     rules are ignored.
> That said, I should probably move that sentence so that it's closer
> to the syntax.

Ah, yeah, missed that.

Received on Friday, 24 May 2013 04:48:59 UTC

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