(CSS) missing properties

[waarissyb]

I noticed some CSS properties not being highlighted properly. I found css-shared.js to be missing some properties. Mainly it concerns CSS Grid properties.

Example of produced highlighting:

Expected behavior:

As CSS is nowadays defined by numerous standards and drafts, it’s debatable what should be added. Currently I’m preparing a pull request for this, and I want to discuss what to add.

My solution
To keep the PR simple, I will only add missing CSS properties to css-shared.js. I’m using https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/all-properties.en.html as my source, which is more useful than the reference of MDN. The latter isn’t complete and contains more than only properties.

Only properties that are part of a W3C Recommendation or Candidate Recommendation will be added. This choice can be seen as conservative, as some properties already listed (like overflow-x) are part of a specification that’s still an Editor’s Draft.

Because the aural part of CSS 2.1 has been deprecated, I will skip those properties and use the properties from CSS Speech Module instead. Other specifications that I’ll consult are:

• CSS Basic User Interface Module Level 3 (CSS3 UI)
• CSS Cascading and Inheritance Level 3
• CSS Fonts Module Level 3
• CSS Grid Layout Module Level 1
• CSS Masking Module Level 1
• CSS Scroll Snap Module Level 1
• CSS Shapes Module Level 1
• CSS Template Layout Module
• CSS Text Module Level 3
• CSS Transforms Module Level 1
• CSS Will Change Module Level 1
• CSS Writing Modes Level 3
• CSS Writing Modes Level 4
• Compositing and Blending Level 1

I will be adding around a hundred properties. Any thoughts on the above?

[joshgoebel]

Only properties that are part of a W3C Recommendation or Candidate Recommendation will be added. This choice can be seen as conservative, as some properties already listed (like overflow-x) are part of a specification that’s still an Editor’s Draft.

I'd say if multiple mainstream browser engines support it then it's "ok"... but if we're "adding in bulk" as we are here I'm fine with being more conservative. The idea is for our grammars to be useful for 99% of people, not necessarily exhaustive because often the size difference between those two is quite large.

Please submit your PR and I'll have a look.

[deepto98]

@joshgoebel Are any tasks remaining for this fix, if so I can pick them up 😃

[joshgoebel]

Probably but I think the sticky/tricky part is deciding which are immediately useful without just adding everything in the universe (and bloating the grammar for things no one needs/uses)... so I don't know that we have an exact target as to what needs to be done here... it's a bit nebulous.

[waarissyb]

I’ve taken my time to go through the CSS specifications again. Some missing things were added, so I’ll create a PR :)