CSS value autolinking syntax (''foo'') no longer works in <pre class="prod"> blocks

[tidoust]

Version 5.0.0 of Bikeshed seems to no longer like the CSS value autolinking syntax (''foo'') in regular production rules. It keeps the wrapping '' and no longer adds links.

Some examples:

• ''none'' in https://drafts.csswg.org/css-color-5/#typedef-modern-device-cmyk-syntax
• https://drafts.csswg.org/css-fonts-4/#ref-for-system-family-name-value%E2%91%A0
• https://drafts.csswg.org/css-shapes-1/#typedef-shape-box

I know there's a note in the doc that says "Currently the CSS value autolinking syntax (''foo'') does not work" but my understanding is that it is scoped to the use of <l> tags. At least, the syntax used to work in <pre class="prod"> blocks ;)

[tidoust]

Hmm, perhaps that's intended in the sense that autolink shorthands aren't supposed to work in elements like <pre>. But then <<foo>> seems to work and I don't know how to create the value links (other than by using <a>) to fix the specs since <l>''foo''</l> does not work either.

[tabatkins]

Yes, had to make a decision about this. Really, using ''foo'' was always wrong, due to the formatting - it displayed with quotes around it, which means something different in the css value definition syntax. Ultimately decided it was best to make a clean break and just stop supporting them by default. <<foo>> still works because it's far more commonly used and useful, and formats properly by default anyway.

since <l>''foo''</l> does not work either.

ah, that's a bug

[cdoublev]

To clarify, the note and you say that ''value'' did not work in <pre> , right?

I am not sure if this is correct. For example:

• https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/blob/b3945367e01dad701f610d54cdc1685e3e05b4ce/css-color-4/Overview.bs#L4685
• https://web.archive.org/web/20250110094328/https://drafts.csswg.org/css-color-4/#typedef-rectangular-color-space

Anyway, I made w3c/csswg-drafts#11579 to remove these quotes instead of wrapping the value in <l>, assuming that linking to these terms in the production is not considered useful.

[tidoust]

To clarify, the note and you say that ''value'' did not work in <pre>, right?

Not sure who "you" is here ;) The note talks about <l>, not <pre>; and I confirm ''value'' used to work in <pre>. That's why I raised this issue.

assuming that linking to these terms in the production is not considered useful.

Thanks for the PR! I added a patch in Webref that does the same thing in the meantime. I find these links useful as they allow to track a term back to its formal syntax definition, but I can certainly survive without them.