When should we drop commas? (was public-fx Re: Comma separation in functional syntax (filters, transforms))

+www-style,-public-fx

Simon wrote:
>> CSS Filters [1] is using a comma-free syntax for arguments to the
>> filter functions. This leads to things like:
>>
>>  filter: gamma(0.5 0.2 0.2);
>>
>> I think it's wrong for this to be different to transforms[2], which
>> currently uses commas. We have to do one or the other, not mix and
>> match.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/FXTF/raw-file/tip/filters/index.html#FilterFunction
>> [2] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-2d-transforms/

Tab replied:
> This change was made at my request to match other functions which we
> are attempting to develop in a comma-less manner when possible.

It seems to me that CSS functions fall into roughly two buckets, which
for lack of better terms I'll call "mathy" and "wacky". :)

The plan to only use commas when separating parallel constructs makes
sense for lots of (wacky) CSS functions, and really improves their
readability.

But for Sufficiently Mathy™ functions, dropping commas looks weird and
makes them harder to read. I think we should keep commas in such cases.


Ted

Received on Thursday, 15 December 2011 18:26:36 UTC