[css2] Should we add scientific notation to CSS 2.1?

[tantek]

Should we explicitly add scientific notation to the CSS 2.1 grammar?

We have a default policy of no new features in CSS 2.1 errata, so shall we continue with that, or, shall we make an exception for scientific notation for numbers for re-use by SVG?

This addition would either need to be made explicitly, or indirectly by normatively referencing the CSS3 Syntax Module (which is believed to more accurately reflect implementations) as an update to the CSS 2.1 Grammar.

cc: https://github.com/gsnedders
Related to issue #2224
Labels: css2, Agenda+ F2F

(Originally published at: http://tantek.com/2018/101/b1/)

[tantek]

I would prefer to NOT add scientific notation to CSS2.x because technically it’s adding a feature (and we resolved long ago no new features in CSS2.x), but I can live with it assuming this is the result of some past resolution and will be harder to undo than "keep".

I am also opposed to adding scientific notation to CSS2.x if it requires adding more normative text as opposed to getting it as a side-effect from an external normative reference e.g. to CSS3 Syntax.

That being said, even if/when CSS2.x normatively references CSS3 Syntax for the grammar (see related issue #2224), I would prefer to subset that, excluding scientific notation from CSS2.x.

PROPOSED: Do not add scientific notation to CSS2.x, or if it is present then explicitly remove it, or if (when) included by a broader normative reference (e.g. to CSS3 Syntax grammar) then explicitly exempt it from inclusion of said normative reference.

(Originally published at: http://tantek.com/2018/102/t3/)

[tabatkins]

Is there a request to add scinot to 2.1 somewhere?

We definitely shouldn't, imo.

[tabatkins]

That being said, even if/when CSS2.x normatively references CSS3 Syntax for the grammar (see related issue #2224), I would prefer to subset that, excluding scientific notation from CSS2.x.

Strongly disagree with this. This is treating 2.1 as an actual, independent conformance entity that someone should be able to implement on its own. That's not what 2.1 is meant for. The purpose of 2.1 is just to maintain the parts of CSS that haven't been shunted to a module yet.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Working Group just discussed Should we add scientific notation to CSS 2.1?, and agreed to the following resolutions:

• RESOLVED: We add a note to CSS 2.1 noting the presence of at least one new feature in the informative reference. We intend not to add any new features to CSS2.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<dael> Topic: Should we add scientific notation to CSS 2.1?
<dael> github: https://github.com//issues/2542
<fantasai> TabAtkins, the error-handling is different in css-syntax-3, but it's not valid in L3 (yet) nor in L2.
<dael> astearns: objections to...
<dael> gsnedders: Previous resolution was in 2016. [reads]
<dael> tantek: There was unintended consiquence. Previous to that we resolved no new features.
<gsnedders> "RESOLVED: Remove CSS grammar section in CSS 2.2 and have a pointer to CSS syntax", 2016-10-12
<gsnedders> (previous resolution)
<dael> astearns: prop: We are not linking normatively to syntax. We will informatively link to syntax and thus no new syntax added to 2.1 incl sci notation
<dael> tantek: If we're trying to get to point that we normatively reference syntax 3 we need to solve for this.
<dael> TabAtkins: I'm willing to promise we won't nromatively reference from 2.1
<dael> tantek: Not a goal?
<dael> TabAtkins: NO, 2.1 doesn't have to care about definition
<dael> tantek: Then I'd like to add a note stating that css3 has a new feature impl should be aware of.
<dbaron> seems like you can't hear me?
<dael> fantasai: That should be in syntax spec. Changes. Other than we re-wrote error handling we added this.
<fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-syntax-3/#changes-css21
<dael> ChrisL: Makes sense, changes from 2.1
<dael> fantasai: It's here ^
<dael> astearns: dbaron can you type into IRC?
<dbaron> I think the note we added in the previous resolution should say
<dbaron> that css-syntax adds a new feature, scientific notation, that was not a feature in level 2.
<dbaron> (and that should just be a note)
<dael> tantek: I'm okay resolve no changes but I'd like to leave the issue open until we get a CR. I'd like to leave this open. Resolve, leave the issue open and not it's pending successful CR.
<dael> astearns: [reads dbaron ]
<dael> astearns: I'm thinking it should be more general that CSS sytnax adds at least 1 new feature that's not in L2.
<ChrisL> sounds good, Alan
<fantasai> can link to CHanges section :)
<dael> astearns: Prop: WE add a note to css 2.1 noting the presence of at least one new feature in the informative reference. We intend not to add any new features to CSS2.
<Vlad> I have another call coming up, have to drop out now, sorry.
<dael> tantek: I like linking to CSS 3 syntax changes section
<dael> astearns: Obj?
<dael> RESOLVED: We add a note to CSS 2.1 noting the presence of at least one new feature in the informative reference. We intend not to add any new features to CSS2.

[gsnedders]

So, for history's sake:

The CSS WG resolved in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Aug/0900.html:

RESOLVED: add scinot to CSS

No statement was made in the resolution or prior discussion about what level this was to be added to.

Based on this resolution (and nothing else, AFAICT), scinot was added to 2.1 in an errata (yes, new syntax, arguably a new feature, in an errata): https://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates/REC-CSS2-20110607-errata.html#s.4.1.1d