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 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/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.

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 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/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.