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

Re: [CSSWG] Resolutions Beijing F2F 2007-09-12

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:13:45 -0400
Message-ID: <46F83699.4000505@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org

> Major topics for Tuesday included:
>    Rotation
>    Scheduling
>    CSS Snapshot 2007

That should've been s/Tuesday/Wednesday/

Also I forgot one:


    RESOLVED: image-orientation accepts all angles, rounds to nearest increment
              of 90deg, and spec says authors SHOULD NOT specify angles other
              than increments of 90deg.
    RATIONALE: Since a number followed by alphabetic is parsed as a length,
              we can't allow '90deg' but not '90.0deg'. If we allow radians,
              then what matches? '3.14rad' and '3.14159rad' are both
              approximations of 180deg, but they are neither equal to 180deg
              nor equal to each other. We could either allow only degree
              measurements (which would be odd because all other angle
              properties accept all angle units, just like all other length
              properties accept all length units) or accept all angle values
              and simply round to the nearest 0deg/90deg/180deg/270deg angle.
              The WG, to avoid changing parsing behavior and because it seemed
              more intuitive, opted for the latter.

Received on Monday, 24 September 2007 22:13:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:30 UTC