- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 11:23:27 +0800
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, w3c-css-wg <w3c-css-wg@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, 史绪胜 <xushengs@gmail.com>
(12/07/05 11:06), L. David Baron wrote: > 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()" This seems like a marketing issue and we have a precedent. We have no problem calling the bare parenthesis after @media "Media Query" and so we can as well invent a term here that can be used to search for documentation and such. > * 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) My bet is that this is not likely to happen. It's not like CSS is a fast-changing language so worrying too much about "reserving for the future" doesn't make much sense to me, and if you want grouping constructs in the future, we still have [] and <>. I think calculation is fundamental enough in CSS and it deserves a special syntax. Cheers, Kenny
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 03:24:11 UTC