W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2016

Re: [css-values] Comments on Serialization of calc

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 17:33:24 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>, Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Francois Remy <frremy@microsoft.com>, CSS WG <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A80A994D-5D51-46C3-8060-956AA84DE960@adobe.com>
On 4/2/16, 8:55 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 9:22 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>
>> I won't object to collapsing identical units in specified styles,
>> but I'm not convinced that saves us a whole lot, especially given
>> we plan to add multiplication and division by units and keywords
>> into the calc expressions at some point in the future -- which are
>> not things that can be simplified away so easily.
>
>I already addressed this in my earlier message.

Could you reiterate or expand on this for my benefit? I read through the thread again and have missed this part.

My current understanding is that since the current simplification proposal is not the most aggressive one, there are current cases that will not be able to be expressed in the simple OM - something like calc(1em + 1ex + 10px). Is that correct? Are there other edge cases that will need a more complicated OM? What’s the fallback plan for things that don’t fit into the simple calc type? (either now if I’m correct that there are edge cases or in the future when we allow more complex calc expressions)

Thanks,

Alan
Received on Sunday, 3 April 2016 17:33:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:38 UTC