Add line-height-step to properties.json. #103
Conversation
|
The spec says that this property is not even animatable. So, it can't have any of the animation types listed in the schema. Can someone please tell me how to proceed? |
|
(I'm not a CSS expert nor an active maintainer of the MDN CSS docs, but ...) I think it should be "discrete". It's shame we don't explain this on the MDN CSS pages. There should be glossary entry explaining discrete animations and every mention of "discrete" should link to it. I think this came from some specs changing "Animatable" to "Animation type" but there are still some specs around that use "Animatable". On MDN we use "Animation type" everywhere I think. |
|
Done. PTAL. |
css/properties.json
Outdated
| "appliesto": "blockContainerElements", | ||
| "computed": "absoluteLength0ForNone", | ||
| "order": "perGrammar", | ||
| "status": "nonstandard" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess this should be "standard" as there is a specification for this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes https://drafts.csswg.org/css-rhythm/#line-height-step
But I thought 'standard' was reserved for things that are full fledged recommendations.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, but I would say definitely not "nonstandard". I guess "standard" is the default/standard setting I would set here. But possibly "experimental" (I'm not always clear on how we use that term, and I look at other usages of it to judge.)
Other properties that have "experimental": display-list, display-outside, font-variation-settings, initial-letter, max-block-size, offset, ... What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My sense is that 'experimental' would be more consistent with what you guys typically do. Changing it now.
This isn't quite ready. I wasn't able to figure out what belongs in the animationType field.