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

Re: unitless angles (and times and frequencies) [css3-2d-transforms][css3-3d-transforms][css3-images]

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:33:19 -0800
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0911041033l10c691dx5a4ceaebb75ba40@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:18 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> Both CSS 2.0 and css3-values are clear that '0' (without units) is
> acceptable as a <length>, but not as an <angle>, <frequency>, or
> <time>.
>
> It turns out that:
>
>  * unambiguous parsing of the new gradient syntax proposal depends
>   on this (in particular, that '0' is not an angle)

Indeed, I noticed this as a potential problem early on, but was
assured that angles weren't allowed to be unitless.

>  * css3-2d-transforms has a number of examples of using '0' as an
>   angle, e.g., 'rotate(0)'
>
> I think 'rotate(0)' is currently implemented in Mozilla, and I'm
> guessing that, given the examples in the transforms spec, it's also
> implemented in WebKit.
>
>
> We either need to:
>  * decide that CSS 2.0 and css3-values are correct, change the
>   transforms examples, and possibly break some existing uses of
>   transforms,
>  * make a special exception for angles in transform functions, or
>  * fix the gradients spec in some way.
>
> My current inclination may actually be to make an exception for
> transform functions.

I wouldn't have a problem with making an exception for the transform
function.  I believe it's unambiguous where angles are allowed.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 18:34:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:22 GMT