Re: [css-fonts] is font variant a list?

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:03 PM, David Warring <david.warring@gmail.com> wrote:
> A quibble about this example versus the property definition from the css-fonts draft:
>
> p {
>   font-variant: discretionary-ligatures,
>                 character-variant(leo-B, leo-M, leo-N, leo-T, leo-U);
> }
>
> The property definition for font-variant doesn't seem to allow lists.
>
> Name:font-variant
> Value:normal | none | [ <common-lig-values> || <discretionary-lig-values> || <historical-lig-values> ||<contextual-alt-values> || stylistic(<feature-value-name>) || historical-forms || styleset(<feature-value-name> #) || character-variant(<feature-value-name> #) || swash(<feature-value-name>) ||ornaments(<feature-value-name>) || annotation(<feature-value-name>) || [ small-caps | all-small-caps |petite-caps | all-petite-caps | unicase | titling-caps ] || <numeric-figure-values> || <numeric-spacing-values> || <numeric-fraction-values> || ordinal || slashed-zero || <east-asian-variant-values> || <east-asian-width-values> || ruby ]
> Should the definition allow lists? I.E. 'Value: normal | none | [ <common-lig-values || ... || ruby ]#

As Glenn said, the use of the || character in the grammar means you
can choose any or all of them, space-separated.

The example, though, is broken.  It shouldn't be using a comma.

~TJ

Received on Saturday, 25 October 2014 17:08:18 UTC