W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2007

Re: Unit omission with zero length

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 07:46:56 +0100
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8it9l31mvfli18tnol6udlbli0eb9sc5g1@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Henri Sivonen wrote:
> From http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/#lengths :
>"After the '0' length, the unit identifier is optional."
>
>Please be more explicit about the distinction between the literal  
>string "0" and the number evaluating to zero ("0.0", "00", ".0", etc.).
>
>I now suppose that the unit identifier is optional only with the  
>literal string "0", but initially, I read less carefully and thought  
>that the unit identifier was optional with anything evaluating to zero.

You are not in fact reading carefully, if you did, you would have read
the more recent and more mature CSS 2.1 CR which states "After a zero
length, the unit identifier is optional." or noticed the contradiction
in your assumption (you could equally well say you cannot use escapes
in the unit identifier because they are formatted the same way). I'd
agree though we should use the CSS 2.1 text.

Next thing you'll have to find out is whether properties that do not
allow negative lenghts allow -0. I know I raised this some time ago,
but don't remember what the conclusion was (nor does this text say...)
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 06:47:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:56 GMT