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

Re: Unit omission with zero length

From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 18:07:41 +0100
Message-ID: <473F1FDD.9000502@w3.org>
To: W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>

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.

Please stop reading "carefully," you're not a computer :-)

What would you rather pay, 0 cents or 0.00 Euro? Which is longer, 0 cm, 
0.0 cm or 0.0000 cm?

[Answers: if you're a computer scientist, "0.0000 cm" is the longest by 
several bytes; if you're a physicist, 0 is the least precise, so it is 
potentially the longest; if you're a normal user of CSS: "Huh, are you 
pulling my leg?"]



Bert
-- 
   Bert Bos                                ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/
   http://www.w3.org/people/bos                               W3C/ERCIM
   bert@w3.org                             2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
   +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92            06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Saturday, 17 November 2007 17:08:02 GMT

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