- From: Peter Linss via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 20:28:11 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I don't think the way that your informal twitter survey was phrased is accurately portraying the choice we're trying to make. You listed old functions with commas and a new function without, where the predominant proposals on the table are to have optional commas in the old functions and possibly optional commas in the new function. There's also no comparison to other css functions that already don't allow commas between certain arguments. I suspect this is biasing the results. Maybe try again with something like: repeat(2, [a] 1fr [b]); circle(at 50% 50%); rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.6); hsl(240, 100%, 50%); newcolorfunction(.1, .2, .3, 50%); vs: repeat(2, [a] 1fr [b]); circle(at 50% 50%); rgba(255 255 255 0.6); hsl(240 100% 50%); newcolorfunction(.1 .2 .3 50%); -- GitHub Notification of comment by plinss Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/266#issuecomment-232782424 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 14 July 2016 20:28:19 UTC