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

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

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 20:06:04 -0700
To: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, w3c-css-wg <w3c-css-wg@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, åēįŧŠčƒœ <xushengs@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120705030604.GA20770@crum.dbaron.org>
On Wednesday 2012-07-04 22:54 +0800, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote:
> 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".

Bare parens have the following two serious disadvantages:

 * it's harder for somebody reading and trying to understand CSS to
   search for documentation on them since there's no name to search
   for (unlike with a functional syntax that allows an author
   encountering it for the first time to search Google for "CSS
   calc()"
   
 * they'd prevent the working group from using parentheses in any
   other contexts in CSS property syntax (though the first point is
   also an argument against most other possible uses)

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
ð„Ē   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 03:06:38 GMT

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