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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:30:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDA-DXPHN5ajyHXH5=1=AyTkWP5Ph4f31w2Yw8x90rX6GQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Cc: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> 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.

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:34 UTC