- From: Tantek Çelik via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 16:01:13 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
tantek has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts: == [css2] Should we add scientific notation to CSS 2.1? == Should we explicitly add scientific notation to the CSS 2.1 grammar? We have a default policy of no new features in CSS 2.1 errata, so shall we continue with that, or, shall we make an exception for scientific notation for numbers for re-use by SVG? This addition would either need to be made explicitly, or indirectly by normatively referencing the CSS3 Syntax Module (which is believed to more accurately reflect implementations) as an update to the CSS 2.1 Grammar. cc: https://github.com/gsnedders Related to [issue #2224](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2224) Labels: css2, Agenda+ F2F (Originally published at: http://tantek.com/2018/101/b1/) Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2542 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2018 16:01:23 UTC