- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:39:51 +0100
- To: "Simon Pieters" <simonp@opera.com>, "Philip Walton" <philip@philipwalton.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
Hello Simon, Friday, December 18, 2015, 12:05:53 PM, you wrote: > But it seems to me you're only likely to want it for var(). Since this > appears to be a pattern people use in the preprocessor world, should we > just support it? It wouldn't be difficult to define a new -var(x) function > as calc(-1 * var(x)), right? Too much of a hack? Slippery slope? Doesn't -var() mean either: a) the vendor-prefixed () for the var vendor, or b) a parse error because the vendor prefix should end with a - as well otherwise, defining it as syntactic sugar for calc seems okay. But then authors will expect to negate other functions in a similar way, no? -- Best regards, Chris Lilley Technical Director, W3C Interaction Domain
Received on Friday, 18 December 2015 12:39:53 UTC