W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2015

Re: being clearer about css-wide keywords and reset-only sub-properties [css-cascade][css-grid][css-border]

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2015 17:21:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAFMnNp4ssZa-hR_xPwFLWKVhFHo6SDXnEY-CBXYa6Amg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 7:51 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> I think this points to lack of clarity in the spec wording, given
> that the definition I quote above in css-cascade is not findable
> from the definitions of these reset-only sub-properties.  I think
> that the prose defining these reset-only sub-properties in css-grid,
> css-border, etc., should:
>
>   1. link to the definition of the term "reset-only sub-property" in
>      css-cascade
>
>   2. either (a) be more deferential to that definition about what it
>      means (and not state that the properties are reset to initial
>      values) or (b) explicitly mention that CSS-wide keywords are
>      applied rather than resetting those subproperties to their
>      initial values (as all other values of the shorthand do).  Or,
>      to put it another way, spec prose should not state that most
>      values reset the subproperty to its initial value without also
>      stating that the css-wide keywords do otherwise.

The css-wide keywords are never present in the grammars, and thus
never described in the definitions of the property.  They're defined
for all properties in Cascade in a uniform manner - they get expanded
out to themselves for all subproperties. I don't really want to have
to remember to include boilerplate in the description of every
shorthand reminding people that the css-wide keywords exist and how
they work; that's extra work, and provokes extra confusion when it's
forgotten and people try to infer a difference from the lack.

I'm fine with putting clarifying text in Cascade near the definition
of "shorthand", tho, and trying to be better about linking that term
when its used.

~TJ
Received on Sunday, 29 November 2015 01:21:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:58 UTC