- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:19:21 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> That being said, even if/when CSS2.x normatively references CSS3 Syntax for the grammar (see related issue #2224), I would prefer to subset that, excluding scientific notation from CSS2.x. Strongly disagree with this. This is treating 2.1 as an actual, independent conformance entity that someone should be able to implement on its own. That's not what 2.1 is meant for. The purpose of 2.1 is just to maintain the parts of CSS that haven't been shunted to a module yet. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2542#issuecomment-380842928 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2018 15:19:25 UTC