W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2012

Re: [css3-values] Disposition of Comments, remaining issues, and moving to CR

From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 22:54:03 +0800
Message-ID: <4FF4590B.3070303@csail.mit.edu>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: w3c-css-wg <w3c-css-wg@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, 史绪胜 <xushengs@gmail.com>
(12/06/29 4:34), fantasai wrote:
> Tab and I just finished the last few outstanding edits into the editor's
> draft:
>   http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-values/
> And updated the Disposition of Comments, here:
>   http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-values/issues-lc-2012
> 
> We'd like to take this spec to CR next week, if possible.
> 
> There are four open issues for WG resolution, all with proposals. They
> are highlighted
> in the issues list, but I will summarize them here as well:

I would also hope the WG reconsider the "nesting calc()" issue. The
minutes has

>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jun/0446.html
>   * hober Yo dawg, I heard you like calc(), so I put a calc() in your
>           calc() so you can do math while you do math
>   * sylvaing we need to calc deeper
>   florian: calc() inside calc() makes sense to me
>   florian: unless we want to open debate of whether calc exists at all
>            and just use bare parens
>   glazou: Are there any objections to calc() inside calc()?
>   silence
>   RESOLVED: calc inside calc allowed

, and I am not sure what this means. Does it mean that the "bare parens"
idea is rejected? Or is it deferred to the next level? The discussion
seemed to be too short to provide any rationale.

In addition to those who express opinion on this in the thread, I also
get an additional feedback from a Web developer who prefers bare parens
and thinks it is "succinct and consistent".


Cheers,
Kenny
Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2012 14:54:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:56 GMT