W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > February 2018

Re: [csswg-drafts] [mediaqueries] How do media queries with calc() where it can be resolved early serialize?

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:38:47 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-365685909-1518629926-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The Working Group just discussed `[mediaqueries] How do media queries with calc() where it can be resolved early serialize?`, and agreed to the following resolutions:

* `RESOLVED: Have calc serialize in MQ same as properties, have that called out in the spec, and then test to see if we can follow that.`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: [mediaqueries] How do media queries with calc() where it can be resolved early serialize?<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1968<br>
&lt;dael> florian: A few weeks back we decided that calc is supposed to simplify down as soon as it can, but not simplify away.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Raised against MQ. Impl were new, but 2 new impl we not doing that. Chrome was about to agree to not do that which means remove the calc when serializing. In same discussion it was raised if combining length units early was if we wanted.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I don't have a stand, but since impl sort of disagree on the resolution we need to revisit. I think TabAtkins thought what w resolved was good.<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: I'm not strong either side. Whatever works.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Do we have anyone who wanted to impl the other thing?<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Not enough strong opinions on the call.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Reading dbaron comment it sounds like you'd be against dropping calc?<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: I'm catching up on the issue<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: I was pointing out one issue wiht dropping calc it sometimes makes a thing valid that wouldn't be valid without the calc. We don't check range restrictions in calc<br>
&lt;dael> florian: IN FF and webkit that's what they do. If you have aspect ratio of -1/-1 with a calc it serialized through as all which is what you'd expect.<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: Maybe...I don't know how well calc validity rules are spec. Changing validity rule would need to be spec carefully<br>
&lt;dael> florian: In same discussion MQ in em serializes to em but em+px serializes to px in a calc and why.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Do we need to revisit how calc seralizes in MQ? Happy with existing rules? Revist based on impl?<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Asking differently: when we resolved on rules for calc in general context were people in favor of what we resolved remembering MQ or did we forget and need to investigate?<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: I do not recall MQ being part of that convo<br>
&lt;dael> fremy: I don't see a point of making them different. We don't support calc but if we did it would be same as properties. If no one is arguing different we should stick with what we have.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Yep. It was pointed out all impl don't do that but it could be a bug. There isn't a problem of web compat because this is new. But if we resolve one thing in spec and everyone impl something else it's not helping.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: IN other words, I'm happy to close won't fix and I'm happy to take tests from fremy and then file bugs one people. Deal?<br>
&lt;dael> fremy: Why not ^-^<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Proposal is close, have clamping in MQ calc be exactly the same as for property values. We'll then have tests to see what's been impl and see if it matches reality?<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Informal tests say they don't, but formal let's us file bugs.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: I like not having something special for MQ. But I think it's useful to have something explicitly discuss this in MQ spec so we can hang a test off it.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Sure...<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I'll phrase it to explicitly refer to the cannonical text. Sounds good.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Proposal is have calc serialize in MQ same as properties, have that called out in the spec, and then test to see if we can follow that.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Obj?<br>
&lt;dael> REOSLVED: Have calc serialize in MQ same as properties, have that called out in the spec, and then test to see if we can follow that.<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Have calc serialize in MQ same as properties, have that called out in the spec, and then test to see if we can follow that.<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1968#issuecomment-365685909 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2018 17:39:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:24 UTC