[css-ui-4] outline-style values are not the same as border-style

[impressivewebs]

In the section on outline-style:

https://drafts.csswg.org/css-ui-3/#outline-style

Next to "Value" it says:

auto | <border-style>

The term <border-style> then links to this page:

https://drafts.csswg.org/css21/box.html#propdef-border-style

Which lists the valid border-style values from CSS2 here:

https://drafts.csswg.org/css21/box.html#value-def-border-style

The values listed there include the value hidden. But the hidden value is not valid for the outline-style property (all the others are fine). So, I believe the primary document should be updated to either point to a different listing of the values that excludes hidden, or else the values for outline-style should be listed on that original page (which would seem to make more sense).

[frivoal]

Good point. The text after the property declaration defines it, so in the end the spec does say the right thing, but I agree it is not a good way of putting it.

[frivoal]

Fixed in css-ui-4: 75b3756

@svgeesus : I believe this is a purely editorial fix that can be added to level 3 as well without disturbing the PR->REC transition. Do you agree? If so, I'll make the fix. Otherwise, I think we'll just have to live with old specs having worse wording than the newest ones.

[Loirooriol]

@frivoal I think <outline-style> := auto | <outline-style> is a circular definition which makes no sense. If you don't want to list all possible values in the definition table, say something like "See prose".

[frivoal]

@Loirooriol different types: on the left side, it's a property (bikeshed syntax 'outline-style'), on the right side it's a production (bikeshed syntax <<outline-style>>), defined further in the text. But ok, using the same word for both may be resolved without ambiguity by software, it's still super confusing, sorry. Fixing that.

[Loirooriol]

Ah, right, the definition was <'outline-style'> := auto | <outline-style>. Well, now it's more clear, thanks!

[frivoal]

@svgeesus ping:

I believe this is a purely editorial fix that can be added to level 3 as well without disturbing the PR->REC transition. Do you agree? If so, I'll make the fix. Otherwise, I think we'll just have to live with old specs having worse wording than the newest ones.