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

On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Alan Stearns <> wrote:
> But I see that prose is sufficient for defining these whitespace
> conventions and the functional notation itself :)

Yes?  You have to bottom out in prose somewhere (or else code).  Doing
so in *one* place that can be checked and verified (and errors fixed
in one spot) is much better than having N places, each written by
different authors over different time periods and different skill
levels, of varying obsoletion levels (so errors or changes may not be
fixed), etc.

> I genuinely fail to see the ambiguities introduced by the prose versions
> in the shapes module,

Any individual clueful usage can argue convincingly that their prose
is currently sufficient.  We hit problems when that scales over specs
and time, though.

> but I'm OK with adding grammar back in as long as I
> can avoid the misleading {3,5} and unreadable repetitions of
> <length>|<percentage>. If <arg> should not be used as a local shorthand,
> what do you recommend? Shall I make a local definition of #{A,B} that can
> eventually be added to Values and Units level 4?

Just make some appropriately-unique named subterm, like
<rectangle-arg> or something.


Received on Friday, 27 September 2013 22:31:14 UTC