- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2019 22:40:56 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
calc(%) vs % ------------ Yeah, should be the same as much as possible, because `calc(%)` will serialize to `%`, as @Loirooriol says. calc(% + 0px) vs calc(%) ------------------------ Sure. There's no case in which these two should be different. Lengths never have magical behavior, so adding it to a % shouldn't add any complications, and in the rare cases where length+% is different than just resolving the % and adding the two together (bg-position), a 0px length is still a no-op. More specifically, the average of `calc(% + 1px)` and `calc(% - 1px)` will, in every case I can see, be the same as as `calc(%)`. calc(length + 0%) vs calc(length) --------------------------------- No, these are different. %s can bring magic, as they sometimes resolve to intrinsic values or behave as auto. Same argument as above, but with opposite result: the average of `calc(length + 1%)` and `calc(length - 1%)` is *not*, in some cases, the same as `calc(length)` . -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3482#issuecomment-451590359 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 4 January 2019 22:40:57 UTC