- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 20:27:30 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> Worst of all: it introduces potential breakage that is hard to track down. E.g. is mix(50%, var(--foo), var(--bar)) correct? Who knows! This applies to a "wrap the arguments in a function" case too. What you've written *also* might be correct, or not, depending on *the exact same thing* - whether the variables contain a comma or not. In either case, an author can defensively mark the function, as `mix(50%; var(--foo); var(--bar))` or `mix(50%, item(var(--foo)), item(var(--bar)))`, and it'll be correct regardless of what the variable is. > It introduces more inconsistency: if authors see a mix() with semicolons in the wild, it's not clear it also accepts commas and vice versa. I'm also not sure how *this* doesn't apply to your preferred solution as well. If authors see a `mix()` with `item()`-wrapped arguments, isn't it *exactly* as unclear whether it can accept values without the `item()` wrapper too? -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9539#issuecomment-1832651695 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2023 20:27:32 UTC