W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > July 2016

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-color] Unnecessary comma in color()

From: Jen Simmons via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 20:03:06 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-232775890-1468526584-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
I just posted this as a question on Twitter. The overwhelming 
consensus is that people want commas. 

"I'd be ok with *optional* commas, but *mandatory* absence of commas 
seems like it would constantly trip me up." — Zing Web Creak

"I l like commas, it's consistent with other functions" — Ire 

"It's one thing to accept a version without commas, but commas are 
standard, so shouldn't cause an error." — Estelle Weyl

"I prefer commas, both for consistency and because they’re an extra 
visual cue that can help avoid errors." — Eric Meyer

[Replying to Eric Meyer] "Agreed. There’s less ambiguity there." — 
Aaron Gustafson

[Replying in the same thread] "With you all: commas - if it looks like
 bunch of parameters being passed, separate them. Also, lessens the 
cognitive load when everything has the same convention [rgb(), 
translate3d(), etc]" — Chris Casino

[And Eric again, replying] "Yep.  I already struggle with the syntax 
of circle() and ellipse(), which don’t allow commas. " — Eric Meyer

One person did say: 
"no commas, just like { padding: 1em 0 2em; }" — Chris Johnson
but he was the only one who thought no commas is more consistent with 
the rest of CSS. Most others argued that having commas is more 
consistent with the rest of CSS.

You can find more replies by clicking the above link. Many were simple
 "yuk" statements, in response to the code snippet I included that 
showed no commas.

GitHub Notification of comment by jensimmons
Please view or discuss this issue at 
using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 14 July 2016 20:03:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:00 UTC