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

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css2] Should we add scientific notation to CSS 2.1?

From: Geoffrey Sneddon via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 03:25:20 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-397502687-1529033119-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
So, for history's sake:

The CSS WG resolved in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Aug/0900.html:

>    RESOLVED: add scinot to CSS

No statement was made in the resolution or prior discussion about what level this was to be added to.

Based on this resolution (and nothing else, AFAICT), scinot was added to 2.1 in an errata (yes, new syntax, arguably a new feature, **in an errata**): https://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates/REC-CSS2-20110607-errata.html#s.4.1.1d

GitHub Notification of comment by gsnedders
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2542#issuecomment-397502687 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 15 June 2018 03:25:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:26:50 UTC