- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 06:06:11 +0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
(12/06/26 5:38), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > However, I don't want to do that. We already use parens as the more > general "grouping" construct elsewhere in CSS (media queries), which then can be a good comparison to using bare parenthesis as calc(). Calculation is a very general "grouping" construct at the "value" level, and the reason why it wouldn't work directly at the top level of a mediaText is because at that location UA expects a declaration-like thing instead of a value. A way to think about this is perhaps to think about this like the parenthesis after "for" in C/JavaScript, where some special syntax in it is expected. (And of course C/JavaScript has no problem treating bare parenthesis as "calc()") > and I think it would be weird to have paren-groups imply calc in some > places and not others. So it seems that this boils down to a matter of personal preference. If there are good examples showing how bare-parentheses-as-calc might be confusing, I might change my mind. > I'd just like #1, to allow calc() inside of calc(), with the same > meaning parens inside of calc(). which means that we'll have two syntax for calc() in a calc(). That can be confusing. Cheers, Kenny
Received on Monday, 25 June 2012 22:06:43 UTC