- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 16:46:08 -0800
- To: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> Is it easier to handle it in the way you suggest? I would think it's >> easier to just detect a cycle and then adjust the internal 'system' >> value of all of the offending counter styles to override decimal >> instead. Then there's no special behavior. > > Yes, I think it is easier to implement in the way I suggested. For > that way, recursive call can still be used with some tricks, like > temporarily specifying the overridden style to decimal, to avoid > infinite loop. But if all styles in loop has to be treated as > overriding decimal, it is necessary to add an explicit loop detection, > and a specific procedure for styles in cycle. > > In addition, I think doing a minimal failure is more intuitive, isn't it? Depends. CSS walks a balancing act between failing minimally and failing usefully - if you try to be too smart in error-handling, it becomes harder to debug (as something *mostly* works right, except for some weird bits), and harder to extend in the future. That's why we simply reject properties that don't conform to their grammar, but reject *only* the property, not the whole rule or the whole stylesheet. That's a good level of "ignoring" in practice. ~TJ
Received on Saturday, 22 February 2014 00:46:54 UTC