- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 21:39:00 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14548 --- Comment #8 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2011-11-02 21:38:55 UTC --- It would be helpful if you could split out your concerns into separate bugs, if you're going to post comments that big. In brief: > If a major vendor used a four-bit counter, and claimed that this was okay > because 99.999% of lists use only positive numbers and stop before 16, would > this be an appropriate limit? Sure. Using that limit might mean that on your particular hardware platform, you are more competitive. Or, it might be that using such a limit makes you very _non_competitive and so you lose market share. > The CSS Box Model was as clear as can be, but probably half of the DIV elements > and lines of CSS ever written were to force a certain user agent to behave in a > certain way. The CSS box model is orders of magnitude more complicated than this case. At the end of the day, I just don't believe that this limit matters in practice. > I'd make the the initial positive sign symbol (U+002B PLUS SIGN) valid for > authors to use. If it has to be supported anyhow, you lose nothing by allowing > it, but gain complete CSS compatibility for all legal values. I see no reason > to forbid it, and there's less fuss that way. I understand that it is unlikely > to encounter such values in CSS, either. Recommend that it not be used, if that > is a major concern. I don't really see any reason to allow it. It doesn't do anything useful. By making it not allowed we let authors know they can omit it. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2011 21:39:09 UTC