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

> 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.

Received on Monday, 13 April 2009 01:51:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:34:25 UTC