W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2012

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

From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 11:23:27 +0800
Message-ID: <4FF508AF.7070404@csail.mit.edu>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, w3c-css-wg <w3c-css-wg@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, 史绪胜 <xushengs@gmail.com>
(12/07/05 11:06), L. David Baron wrote:
> 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()"

This seems like a marketing issue and we have a precedent. We have no
problem calling the bare parenthesis after @media "Media Query" and so
we can as well invent a term here that can be used to search for
documentation and such.

>  * 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)

My bet is that this is not likely to happen. It's not like CSS is a
fast-changing language so worrying too much about "reserving for the
future" doesn't make much sense to me, and if you want grouping
constructs in the future, we still have [] and <>.

I think calculation is fundamental enough in CSS and it deserves a
special syntax.

Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 03:24:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:18 UTC