It appears that there has been some confusion between the (X)HTML usage of Length and the CSS usage of <length>. Surely the intent is not to sanction values like 1.5em for ruby-span? Shouldn't it be <integer> instead? Another consideration that may be too late, since this is post last call, is that perhaps an <integer> value for ruby-span should be considered legal even if it given directly instead of via an attr(x). (I.e make "ruby-span:1;" legal.) I agree that the value of 0 for x in attr(x) should be equivalent to none, but I disagree that 0 or none should be legal values. Since the decision has been made to make it clear that this is essentially an <integer> value, and since the CSS3 Units working draft says that it is acceptable for individual properties to limit this to a specific range of values, why not simply have the spec state that it must be positive, with non-poistive values to be treated as invalid. The only reason I can see for the none value is make a default value possible. If directly given <integer> values were legal, then a default value of value of ruby-span of 1 would be equivalent to the current draft.Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 14:21:19 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:21 GMT