- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:39:23 -0800
- To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com> wrote: > Good one, thanks. But I think calc() should be mentioned explicitly as > currently [1] contains just this: > > 4.1. width > Value: <length> > > And calc() is not a length strictly speaking. Actually, it is (as long as it contains an expression that evaluates to a <length>). > Yes, [2] contains > statement "It can be used wherever <length>, <frequency>, <angle>, > <time>, <number>, or <integer> values are allowed." but calc() among > other things can be evaluated to <percent> for example. Treatment of > <percent>s in MQ can be different from normal box model that we have > (e.g. calculated against screen workspace dimensions). The definition of calc() already handles percentages. They're only valid if bare <percentage>s are valid where the calc() is placed, and if so, they're evaluated in the same way, to one of the other types. > In fact calc() > may also benefit from having conditionals: > calc( 20px > 2em ? 300px : 200px ) > but that's another story indeed. Indeed. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 15 November 2013 00:40:10 UTC