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 calc()" * 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) -David -- ð L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ ð ðĒ Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ ðReceived on Thursday, 5 July 2012 03:06:38 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:18 UTC