W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2009

Re: [CSS3] Flexible Flow Module, proposal.

From: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 18:50:58 -0700
To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090412185058.4e6c5555@mozilla.com>
Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com> wrote:
> 
> How is
> 
>    width: calc(100px + 1fl);
> 
> different from
> 
>    width: 1fl;
>    min-width: 100px;

It may or may not be semantically different; I claim my version is
easier to understand.

> I do not see how use of '*' makes syntax worse. What exactly is
> causing problems in your opinion?

Not fitting into the DIMENSION production will cause trouble down the
road.

> About 'fl'. lowercase 'L' is not desirable in length units as it is 
> close to the '1' in monospaced fonts. And 'f' belongs to hex digits -
> may cause some inconsistencies in future.

I'm not insisting on 'fl'.  I am, however, insisting on an IDENT.

> I even would allow use of '*' without any number with the meaning that
> '*' alone is exact equivalent of '1*'

Even worse for the grammar.

> Allowance of '-' in names in CSS created precedent that we need to
> deal with forever. I mean that handling of '*' is exactly the same as 
> handling '-' as part of name token and as a minus sign.

One special case is far better than two.  Once you have two, it is
harder and harder to argue against more.

zw
Received on Monday, 13 April 2009 01:51:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 03:46:58 GMT