- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 14:15:56 +0100
- To: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 30/04/2014 00:43, Xidorn Quan wrote: > There is another potential problem I am aware of is that, what should > happen if one day we may support more than one type of custom-ident in > one property? For example, if one day we decide to make > timing-function a custom-ident as well so that author could use > at-rules to define more complex ones, how can we distinguish > custom-ident for different purpose? Whatever, that is problem in the > future, so we may not need to worry a lot about it now. Same with this > problem. Ambiguous syntax is a problem that exists with every value type, not just <custom-ident>. We have to use tricks such as adding a delimiter or making the order significant to disambiguate. For example, each box-shadow uses commas to separate each <shadow> value, which can be made of two to four <length>s. If each <shadow> was just a single <length>, we wouldn’t need any comma. -- Simon Sapin
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2014 13:16:29 UTC