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

I would prefer bare parens. Will bare parens introduce any other problems?

This issue is marked as accepted:
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-values/issues-lc-2012#issue-31 , so  need to
open another issue or won't consider this?


Thanks!

Roger Shi



On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <
kennyluck@csail.mit.edu> wrote:

> (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
>