- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 23:56:49 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I... I don't understand what you people have against percentages. It's "industry practice" to use 0-1 floats *because those languages (mostly C++) don't have any standard way to do typed-numbers and so just expose them as floats*. CSS *does* have easy ways to do typed numbers, which are trivial to use and aid in readability. Like, Lea says in her comment that `color(foo .1 .2 .3 .5)` is hard to read, because it's unclear whether the fourth number is a fourth arg to the colorspace or the alpha (I agree). But if you just write `color(foo .1 .2 .3 50%)`, that problem completely disappears - it's now 100% obvious that the last one is an alpha, even at a casual glance. I argue that this is *easier* to read than `color(foo .1 .2 .3, .5)`, and they're exactly the same number of characters, so the "save bytes" argument doesn't apply. > When things in CSS are space-separated, people expect to be able to use any order, unless there is an obvious ambiguity (e.g. all numbers). I think when there is a specified order, it's more clear to have a comma. I don't think it's unusual to have "names" come before "arguments". Everything else about this function is precisely ordered already, and I somewhat agree with dino's argument that we shouldn't make it difficult to remember where the commas need to be. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/266#issuecomment-231900328 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 11 July 2016 23:56:55 UTC