Re: [css-shapes] basic shape syntax in prose

On Sep 27, 2013, at 10:06 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:

> On 9/27/13 12:26 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> That seems quite unusual. Why not do both. The official CSS property
>>> definition and the prose text? I for instance like to read the grammar
>>> defined by CSS Values and Units better.
>> 
>> Yes, having just prose is a recipe for disaster.  Feel free to include
>> prose-based descriptions *in addition to* the normative grammar-based
>> definition, but don't remove the grammar.  It's the least ambiguous
>> way to indicate this stuff.
>> 
>> ~TJ
> 
> The normative grammar-based definition is not readable when precise, and
> not precise when readable. I think there's a false sense of accuracy in
> the format for functional notation, as we seem to be willing to fudge
> whitespace rules everywhere. And I'm not sure how we expect people to find
> their way to [1] to decipher the grammar scribblings.
> 
> I'm not willing to add back in what was in the draft:
> 
> rectangle([<length>|<percentage>][, [<length>|<percentage>]]{3,5})
> 
> 
> As there are too few people who have any idea what {3,5} means here, and I
> think it's unfortunate that I have to use the numbers 3 and 5 to mean "4
> to 6". But I could add back in something more readable, based on the
> examples I see in CSS3-Color:
> 
> rectangle() = rectangle( <arg>, <arg>, <arg>, <arg> [, <arg>]? [, <arg>]? )
> <arg> = <length>|<percentage>
> 
> Would that be satisfactory?

<arg> will be a specific type and we should agree on a specific name since this is a global definition affecting all specs. In general yes, that would be possible.

Greetings,
Dirk

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alan
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/#value-defs
>

Received on Friday, 27 September 2013 20:49:39 UTC