Thomas Davie wrote:
On 12 Mar 2011, at 23:27, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Thomas Davie wrote:
Is * expected to be a valid object name in MapCSS too then?
I think you're overestimating how formalised all of this stuff is
so far. ;)
In general: be CSS-like. If CSS has *, we should have * unless it's
clearly wrong. There are zillions of CSS aficionados across the
world; we have to have a really good reason to go against them.
Agreed – I just wanted to clarify that the implication of the
previous email was indeed that "*" should work in MapCSS to mean "any
one of node | way | relation | area | line". Your reply seems to
confirm that.
I think * is useful and should work the way you describe it.
We can restrict ourselves to a subset of css but better not be in contradiction too often. E.g.
"way [highway]" would look weird for a css guy (unless it means a Node tagged as
"highway" and part of a Way) but it's ok to demand that the type selector is written
explicitly (i.e. not accept the shortcut :closed for *:closed.)
Actually, you don't have to write a MapCSS _validator_. Any modern browser
accepts non-valid html and displays it as best as possible. So there is nothing
wrong if you just ignore whitespace at some places where they don't belong (but
be aware that this won't work for all implementations).
Sebastian
_______________________________________________
Mapcss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/mapcss
