- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 12:22:44 -0400
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Francois Remy <frremy@microsoft.com>, CSS WG <www-style@w3.org>
On 04/01/2016 03:47 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > While this may have some theoretical value, there are no authors in > the wild today depending on this, as IE is the only browser that > preserves things exactly. All other browsers simplify at least > somewhat, so authors already have to deal with the fact that their > input and output might not be identical (or else they're writing > really broken code). This is a very misleading statement. Mozilla only simplifies numerical factors, so in fact IE and Mozilla's behaviors are very close and preserve almost everything. http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?saved=4029 Also, Rossen's concern (which I share) is not just about what authors are depending on right now (given lack of interop between Blink/Webkit and IE/FF, it's probably not much), but what would be useful for them to have going into the future. And I agree that for computed style we should collapse as much as possible. (In fact, the Computed Value line is generally represented as a tuple of percentage and length, which then serializes out as calc() if it's got non-zero values in both.) I won't object to collapsing identical units in specified styles, but I'm not convinced that saves us a whole lot, especially given we plan to add multiplication and division by units and keywords into the calc expressions at some point in the future -- which are not things that can be simplified away so easily. In any case, as I noted in the minutes of the telecon you're referencing, I would prefer we got author feedback on this issue. ~fantasai
Received on Saturday, 2 April 2016 16:23:13 UTC