Re: [css3-values] Disposition of Comments, remaining issues, and moving to CR

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 16:54:03 +0200, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu
<> wrote:

> (12/06/29 4:34), fantasai wrote:
>> Tab and I just finished the last few outstanding edits into the editor's
>> draft:
>> And updated the Disposition of Comments, here:
>> We'd like to take this spec to CR next week, if possible.
>> There are four open issues for WG resolution, all with proposals. They
>> are highlighted
>> in the issues list, but I will summarize them here as well:
> I would also hope the WG reconsider the "nesting calc()" issue. The
> minutes has
>>   * hober Yo dawg, I heard you like calc(), so I put a calc() in your
>>           calc() so you can do math while you do math
>>   * sylvaing we need to calc deeper
>>   florian: calc() inside calc() makes sense to me
>>   florian: unless we want to open debate of whether calc exists at all
>>            and just use bare parens
>>   glazou: Are there any objections to calc() inside calc()?
>>   silence
>>   RESOLVED: calc inside calc allowed
> , and I am not sure what this means. Does it mean that the "bare parens"
> idea is rejected? Or is it deferred to the next level? The discussion
> seemed to be too short to provide any rationale.
> In addition to those who express opinion on this in the thread, I also
> get an additional feedback from a Web developer who prefers bare parens
> and thinks it is "succinct and consistent".

The minutes are shorter than the actual discussion, but my recollection
was: if we were open to having bare parens do what calc do today, then
nesting bare parens would be an option. However, dropping calc in favour
of bare parens is not on the table, so nesting calc makes more sense.

The bare parens instead of calc is an old discussion that was decided in
favour of calc a long time ago, and we are not reopening it.

At least that's the way I remember how the meeting went.

    - Florian

Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2012 15:07:03 UTC