- From: Ilya Streltsyn via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 12:44:58 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Honestly, I'm not sure that @Loirooriol's quote is the perfect match here. The twitter tread referenced above seems to be about the properties that accept only `<length-percentage>`, so I don't see how the rule for _properties_ legitimately accepting _both_ `<number>` and `<length>` applies here. As I understand the problem, we have two 'kinds' of the numeric zero value – the literal one and the calculated one – and the question is why the latter is different from the former when it comes to casting to `<length>`. The quote, on the contrary, considers two potential interpretation of the same _literal_ zero number. IMO, the notion of the `<zero>` sub-type seems to be the better option to clear the confusion. Replacing > (i.e. can be syntactically represented as the `<number>` 0). with > (i.e. can be syntactically represented as `<zero>`). seems to completely solve the issue to me. -- GitHub Notification of comment by SelenIT Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4554#issuecomment-561627727 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2019 12:45:00 UTC