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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 00:52:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBamiNXrOqac25qyCRcdd81O_WPViEJTEgYK80-MDwUEw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, 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>
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu
<kennyluck@csail.mit.edu> wrote:
> (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.

The examples aren't really parallel.  A media query starts with
"@media", which you can go look up to see what the syntax is.  There's
no such prefix for bare parentheses showing up in some arbitrary
property's value.

>>  * 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 <>.

One must always worry about being future-friendly, or else you'll make
mistakes that are really annoying later.  (You'll probably make them
anyway, but hopefully less often if you're watching out for them.)

Parentheses are a grouping construct, and don't have much meaning
beyond that.  Assigning them the meaning of "math goes inside here"
would be quite unique, and somewhat weird imo.

> I think calculation is fundamental enough in CSS and it deserves a
> special syntax.

It already has a special syntax - it's called "calc()".

Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 07:53:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:01 UTC