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

On Wednesday 2012-07-04 22:54 +0800, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote:
> 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".

Bare parens have the following two serious disadvantages:

 * it's harder for somebody reading and trying to understand CSS to
   search for documentation on them since there's no name to search
   for (unlike with a functional syntax that allows an author
   encountering it for the first time to search Google for "CSS
 * they'd prevent the working group from using parentheses in any
   other contexts in CSS property syntax (though the first point is
   also an argument against most other possible uses)


𝄞   L. David Baron                  𝄂
ð„Ē   Mozilla                    𝄂

Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 03:06:38 UTC