- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:04:52 -0800
- To: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com> wrote: > Fallback does not require an explicit loop detection. The spec has > said that it is not necessarily an error to have a fallback loop. The > behavior for override loop I propose here is, to some extent, similar > with the way for fallback loop. Different from speak-as, which has > only one value, fallback and override could affect multiple values > (fallback for discrete numbers, override for descriptors). Doing the > minimal failure, IMHO, is more intuitive for authors and also easier > to implement. Fallback cycles have some use, and less possibility (imo) of confusion. I don't think there's any possible use-case, beyond silly tricks, for override cycles. > Imagine that, when an author writes an override loop by accident, if > he sees only the descriptors specified in the rule is effective, he > may think there is a spelling mistake of the name, and check over and > over again without catching the true reason. However if he finds some > descriptors in overridden system is also effective, while only the > counter representation is wrong, he will have a higher probability to > follow the override chain and notice the loop. My fear is that only *some* descriptors will get defaulted, and the author won't notice it for some time; it'll just look weird instead, perhaps for a long amount of time. A more obvious breakage makes it more likely that the problem will be noticed and looked into. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 22:05:39 UTC