- From: Lea Verou via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 17:16:53 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> I think this is a case of the editors not appreciating the impact of other changes. At the time it was introduced to CSS, CIE L was a `<number>` in [0..100]. Then it became a mandatory `<percentage>` for a long time, and relatively recently became `<percentage>` | `<number>`. You are right that this means RCS no longer defines what you actually calculate with for `calc()` inside RCS. Yeah, [this appears to have been some sort of mass change](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/102f3c3a8c9a273d6ab7db046341a92b13d1307d). > Following the advice that @LeaVerou gives in her CSS Variables talks: > > > converting a number to a value with units is easy, `calc(var(--foo) * 100%)` > > converting a value with units to a number requires things like `calc(var(--foo) / 1%)` which don't exist yet > > so make your custom properties be pure data with no units > > Then I suggest resolving this such that `<percentage>` gets resolved to `<number>` because that will be the most convenient thing to manipulate in `calc()` As a general principle, we should not be designing the language long-term based on short-term limitations. However, I don't see anything wrong with erring on `<number>` whenever possible, to limit the number of conversions needed. That could be a general principle for RCS. -- GitHub Notification of comment by LeaVerou Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7876#issuecomment-1277935443 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2022 17:16:55 UTC