Re: Summary of calc serialization discussion

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 7:24 AM Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> Here’s my stripped-down analysis of what’s been discussed so far:
>
> A. There is a benefit (for authors and developers) to simplifying the
> specified value of calc for the Typed OM.
>
> B. There is a benefit (for debuggers and editors) for retaining the actual
> string in the specified value.
>
> C. Browsers currently do not agree on what to do with specified calc()
> values. There is a benefit to interoperability, but there has been no
> evidence presented that authors care about the current differences.
>
> Here are some options I see.
>
> 1. Solving for A and C, we define serialization rules as proposed two
> weeks ago, and ask browsers to converge in how their tools represent
> specified values. This makes things worse for B
>
> 2. Solving for B and C, we stick to specified values as the specified
> strings, and ask browsers to converge on that. This makes things worse for
> A.
>
> 3. Solving for A alone, we could define that the Typed OM uses computed
> value simplifications for its representation of specified calc() values,
> and leave things as they are with C for now.
>

By "computed value simplifications" you mean expression simplifications?
Merging of values with like units, simplification of constants, etc?

Cheers,
    -Shane


> Given the conversation so far, it seems to me that there would be
> objections to either 1 or 2. Is 3 an acceptable compromise?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alan
>