- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:54:46 -0800
- To: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
- Cc: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Bobby Tung <bobbytung@wanderer.tw>
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:13 PM, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote: >> >> Xidorn Quan wrote: >> >> > OK, then, let's add a keyword for 'font-size', say 'ruby-text', and >> > make it be computed according to ruby-position. It is computed to 30% >> > when ruby-position is inter-character, and 50% otherwise. >> >> Adding keyword values like this to 'font-size' affects the parsing of >> the 'font' shorthand so it's a fairly large impact change. > > Hmm, but we have had several keyword values for font-size, and the 'font' > shorthand has a relatively strict syntax requirement, which actually allows > us to introduce any type of single value for font-size without causing > ambiguity. Yeah, there's no ambiguity. The keyword doesn't conflict with any *other* font-* longhands, and since the 'font' shorthand requires a <'font-size'> before the <'font-family'>, it's fully unambiguous. No compat risk at all from adding new keywords to <'font-size'> (or any of the other font-* longhands, for that matter). ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2015 03:55:33 UTC