- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 19:42:16 -0700
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 6:40 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > In the new text in > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-values/#the-calc-min-and-max-functions > describing calc(), I think these constraints: > > 2. At "*": > > check: at least one side is "number" > > return: the type of the other side > > 3. At "/": > > check: either right side is "number," or both have the same type > > return: if the former, type of left side; otherwise "number" > are too strong. And, additionally, since the new definition of the > binary operators is nonrecursive, they're also ambiguous. > > In particular, I think it's bad that they make: > 2em * (2em / 3em) > legal while the mathematically equivalent: > (2em * 2em) / 3em > is illegal and it's unclear whether: > 2em * 2em / 3em > is legal or not. I think these should be handled consistently. We really just need to stop faking it and track units properly across the expression. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 02:46:02 UTC