W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > September 2011

Re: [CSS3-mediaqueries]: Invalid test cases in test suite

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:56:28 -0700
To: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110928185628.GA24409@pickering.dbaron.org>
On Wednesday 2011-09-28 18:45 +0000, Arron Eicholz wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 28, 2011 7:14 AM Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Arron Eicholz
> > <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > Unfortunately we defined 0 to be both positive and negative.
> > 
> > Wait, we did?  Dammit, that means I probably have language that needs
> > adjusting in my specs.  I assumed that if you wanted to include zero you used
> > "non-negative/positive".
> 
> The problem is that 0 can take signs. Since it can then we have to be explicit about it. If you say 'positive' then +0 is valid, similar issue with 'non-negative'. However, -0 would of course not be valid for 'positive' or 'non-negative'. We just need to be clearer when it comes to writing text about values.
> 
> We should get in the habit of saying 'non-zero' if we want to exclude 0.

Is there a source you're getting this from, or are you just making
it up based on your intuition?

What you said explicitly disagrees with CSS 2.1, which says:
  # -0 is equivalent to 0 and is not a negative number.
in http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#numbers .

It also explicitly disagrees with the two dictionaries I just
checked for the definition of "positive".

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2011 18:56:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 28 September 2011 18:57:02 GMT