Re: [csswg-drafts] [css2] Should we add scientific notation to CSS 2.1?

The Working Group just discussed `Should we add scientific notation to CSS 2.1?`, and agreed to the following resolutions:

* `RESOLVED: We add a note to CSS 2.1 noting the presence of at least one new feature in the informative reference. We intend not to add any new features to CSS2.`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: Should we add scientific notation to CSS 2.1?<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2542<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins, the error-handling is different in css-syntax-3, but it's not valid in L3 (yet) nor in L2.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: objections to...<br>
&lt;dael> gsnedders: Previous resolution was in 2016. [reads]<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: There was unintended consiquence. Previous to that we resolved no new features.<br>
&lt;gsnedders> "RESOLVED: Remove CSS grammar section in CSS 2.2 and have a pointer to CSS syntax", 2016-10-12<br>
&lt;gsnedders> (previous resolution)<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: prop: We are not linking normatively to syntax. We will informatively link to syntax and thus no new syntax added to 2.1 incl sci notation<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: If we're trying to get to point that we normatively reference syntax 3 we need to solve for this.<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: I'm willing to promise we won't nromatively reference from 2.1<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: Not a goal?<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: NO, 2.1 doesn't have to care about definition<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: Then I'd like to add a note stating that css3 has a new feature impl should be aware of.<br>
&lt;dbaron> seems like you can't hear me?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: That should be in syntax spec. Changes. Other than we re-wrote error handling we added this.<br>
&lt;fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-syntax-3/#changes-css21<br>
&lt;dael> ChrisL: Makes sense, changes from 2.1<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: It's here ^<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: dbaron can you type into IRC?<br>
&lt;dbaron> I think the note we added in the previous resolution should say<br>
&lt;dbaron> that css-syntax adds a new feature, scientific notation, that was not a feature in level 2.<br>
&lt;dbaron> (and that should just be a note)<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: I'm okay resolve no changes but I'd like to leave the issue open until we get a CR. I'd like to leave this open. Resolve, leave the issue open and not it's pending successful CR.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: [reads dbaron ]<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: I'm thinking it should be more general that CSS sytnax adds at least 1 new feature that's not in L2.<br>
&lt;ChrisL> sounds good, Alan<br>
&lt;fantasai> can link to CHanges section :)<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Prop: WE add a note to css 2.1 noting the presence of at least one new feature in the informative reference. We intend not to add any new features to CSS2.<br>
&lt;Vlad> I have another call coming up, have to drop out now, sorry.<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: I like linking to CSS 3 syntax changes section<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Obj?<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: We add a note to CSS 2.1 noting the presence of at least one new feature in the informative reference. We intend not to add any new features to CSS2.<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2542#issuecomment-384355139 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2018 16:46:46 UTC