Hello,
The grammar of <calc-value> (Mathematical expressions - Syntax, CSS Values) does not seem to allow calc() to be used recursively and in other math functions. This is only possible with simple blocks.
<calc-sum> = <calc-product> [ [ '+' | '-' ] <calc-product> ]*
<calc-product> = <calc-value> [ [ '*' | '/' ] <calc-value> ]*
<calc-value> = <number> | <dimension> | <percentage> | <calc-constant> | ( <calc-sum> )
<calc()> = calc( <calc-sum> )
<min()> = min( <calc-sum># )
... other math functions
Would the following change be appropriate?
- <calc-value> = <number> | <dimension> | <percentage> | <calc-constant> | ( <calc-sum> ) + <calc-value> = <number> | <dimension> | <percentage> | <calc-constant> | ( <calc-sum> ) | <calc()>
EDIT 1: or maybe the following change, to also allow other math functions?
- <calc-value> = <number> | <dimension> | <percentage> | <calc-constant> | ( <calc-sum> ) + <calc-value> = <number> | <dimension> | <percentage> | <calc-constant> | ( <calc-sum> ) | <math-function> + <math-function> = <calc()> | <min()> | <max()> | <clamp()> | ...
EDIT 2: and now I realize that the following part answer this (part of my) issue.
A math function represents a numeric value [...] and can be used wherever such a value would be valid.
EDIT 3: duplicate of #1781.
To be honest, I'm creating this issue as a pretext to ask for clarifications about other math functions related parts of the specification that I'm not sure to understand correctly. I hope I will not waste anyone's time by asking stupid questions, and that they will help to improve some parts instead.
In the introduction of The internal representation (of math functions), it is written:
The internal representation [of any math function other than
calc()] is an operator node with the same name as the function, whose children are the result of parsing a calculation from each of the function’s arguments, in the order they appear.
The round() function accepts a component value that is not a calculation as its arguments: <round()> = round( <rounding-strategy>?, <calc-sum>, <calc-sum> ). Am I right to think that the above definition was written after adding round() to the specification? round() does not seem to be handled also in the procedure to serialize a math function, which starts with "If the root of the calculation tree fn represents is a numeric value [...]".
For step 3 of the procedure to parse a calculation, it is written:
For every consecutive run of value items in values separated by "*" or "/" operators: [...]
What is a "run" in "every consecutive run of values"? Is it different from "every consecutive values"? Should 1 * 2 * 3 * 4 be reduced to a Product [[1, 2], [3, 4]], [[[[1, 2], 3], 4], or [1, 2, 3, 4]? Does it really matter? I believe that the procedure to simplify a calculation tree will be able to process and return the same result for these 3 different structures anyway, but I'm just not sure why this "consecutive run" term is used.
For step 4 of this same procedure, it is written:
If
valueshas only one item, and it is a Product node or a parenthesized simple block [...]
Given the grammar of <calc-sum>, theoretically a sum can only receive <calc-product>. Is it correct that this means that a Product data structure is different from a component value matching the grammar of <calc-product>? If so, that's quite confusing to me. Is it about to avoid writing the grammar of <calc-sum> with <calc-value> | <calc-product> [ ['*' | '/'] <calc-product> ]?
In step 4 of the procedure to simplify a calculation tree, it is written:
If root is an operator node that’s not one of the calc-operator nodes, and all of its children are numeric values with enough information to compute the operation root represents [...]
Is it correct that root can only be a math function? If so, what is the reason for not using the math function term instead of an operator node that’s not one of the calc-operator nodes?
Also, it seems that none of the remaining steps of this procedure handle a math function containing non numeric values. Does a step 10. Return root is missing?
I see this note above the procedure to serialize a mathematical function:
This section is still under discussion.
But access to the link target is restricted to W3C members. Is it possible to give me clues for the following terms that appear in the different steps of this procedure:
fn representsfn representsroot node isDo they mean different things?
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.3