W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2016

Re: Summary of calc serialization discussion

From: Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 21:40:58 +0000
Message-ID: <CAGTfzwR00jpjOiGBdOgn1qza-PX6X1SnozBtvqjd6y6jTn-6jg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, CSS WG <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 7:24 AM Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> Here’s my stripped-down analysis of what’s been discussed so far:
>
> A. There is a benefit (for authors and developers) to simplifying the
> specified value of calc for the Typed OM.
>
> B. There is a benefit (for debuggers and editors) for retaining the actual
> string in the specified value.
>
> C. Browsers currently do not agree on what to do with specified calc()
> values. There is a benefit to interoperability, but there has been no
> evidence presented that authors care about the current differences.
>
> Here are some options I see.
>
> 1. Solving for A and C, we define serialization rules as proposed two
> weeks ago, and ask browsers to converge in how their tools represent
> specified values. This makes things worse for B
>
> 2. Solving for B and C, we stick to specified values as the specified
> strings, and ask browsers to converge on that. This makes things worse for
> A.
>
> 3. Solving for A alone, we could define that the Typed OM uses computed
> value simplifications for its representation of specified calc() values,
> and leave things as they are with C for now.
>

By "computed value simplifications" you mean expression simplifications?
Merging of values with like units, simplification of constants, etc?

Cheers,
    -Shane


> Given the conversation so far, it seems to me that there would be
> objections to either 1 or 2. Is 3 an acceptable compromise?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alan
>
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2016 21:41:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:02 UTC