W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2016

Re: propdef tables for shorthands

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 18:17:17 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DAC94296-B8F5-4775-A7A1-D876C6352EFA@adobe.com>
On 5/5/16, 11:10 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:55 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>> We've been leaving most fields in shorthand propdef tables
>> as "see individual properties", but, I think going forward
>> we should fill these in if all sub-properties have the same
>> value. This is more useful to people looking things up in
>> the spec, especially as we are encouraging people to use
>> shorthands over longhands in many cases.
>I disagree.  Doing so would suggest that shorthands persist somehow in
>the CSS data model, when in reality they're expanded into longhands at
>the very beginning of the cascade process.  They don't apply to
>anything, they don't inherit, etc.  It doesn't help authors build a
>good mental model to suggest otherwise.
>It's also an editing hazard - if we change any subproperty such that
>not all of them are identical, we have to remember to update the
>shorthand as well; if we forget, we have confusing incorrect

Would it be possible for bikeshed to keep track of these dependencies?


Received on Thursday, 5 May 2016 18:17:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:59 UTC