The "Formal syntax" section for rgb() is incorrect

[yarusome]

Summary

The "Formal syntax" section only shows the legacy syntax of rgb(), and even the shown syntax is incorrect (i.e. lacks #).

URL

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/color_value/rgb#formal_syntax

Reproduction steps

1. Navigate to the link above.
2. Compare the syntax shown there and that in the spec.

Expected behavior

<rgb()> =
  rgb( [ <number> | <percentage> | none ]{3} [ / [<alpha-value> | none ] ]? )

Actual behavior

<rgb()> = 
  rgb( [ <percentage> | none ]{3} [ / [ <alpha-value> | none ] ]? )  |
  rgb( [ <number> | none ]{3} [ / [ <alpha-value> | none ] ]? )

Device

Desktop

Browser

Firefox

Browser version

Stable

Operating system

Windows

Screenshot

No response

Anything else?

1. webref/css does contain the correct syntax on Line 826-854 in css-color.json.
2. hsl(), which also has a legacy syntax, shows correctly.

Validations

• I have read the Community Participation Guidelines.
• I have verified that there isn't already an issue that reports the same bug to avoid creating a duplicate.
• I have checked that this is a concrete bug. For Q&A open a GitHub Discussion.

[bsmth]

This is defined here: https://github.com/mdn/data/blob/main/css/functions.json#L355

But I thought we were pulling this in from webref and no longer updating mdn/data, maybe I'm mistaken.

[bsmth]

Actually I believe we're waiting to migrate webref to >=v6.0.0

edit: see https://github.com/mdn/yari/blob/main/kumascript/src/lib/css-syntax.ts

[yarusome]

@bsmth I refrained from opening a PR for css-syntax.ts due to the complexity of its structure. Besides, I see that this script should probably be covered/superseded by openwebdocs/project#174.

[bsmth]

I refrained from opening a PR for css-syntax.ts due to the complexity of its structure

I agree it's not easy to navigate this one, unfortunately.

[caugner]

@yarusome We have meanwhile updated to @webref/css v6 (although not yet to the latest version). Can you please check if the formal syntax is now "correct"?

[caugner]

It looks good to me now:

So I'm going ahead and close this issue as resolved.