- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 23:53:51 +0000
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 28/02/2014 23:52, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> From the current ED: >> >>> <track-list> = [ <line-names>? [ <track-size> | <repeat()> ] ]+ >>> <line-names>? >> >> >>> repeat() = repeat( <positive-integer> , >>> [ <line-names>? <track-size> ]+ >>> <line-names>? ) >>> >>> The first argument specifies the number of repetitions. The second >>> argument is a track list, which is repeated that number of times. The >>> repeat() notation cannot be nested; doing so makes the declaration >>> invalid. >> >> >> After expanding repeat() into a repeated track list, this can result in >> adjacent <line-names>, which is normally not allowed. >> >> For example, this: >> >> (a) repeat(2, (b) 40px (c)) (d) >> >> Expands to: >> >> (a) (b) 40px (c) (b) 40px (c) (d) >> >> Should adjacent <line-names> lists be "merged"? The end result would be: >> >> (a b) 40px (c b) 40px (c d) > > It's not literally, textually expanded. So yes. I think the case of merging adjacent <line-names> lists deserves at least one normative sentence in the spec :) -- Simon Sapin
Received on Friday, 28 February 2014 23:54:14 UTC