- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:41:31 -0600
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Cc: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote:
> I'm all for removing complexity.
I don't follow. The "remove complexity" part of Zack's message argues
for either accepting scinot everywhere or accepting it nowhere
(including removing it from SVG).
> And I get a headache from trying to
> read style sheets like this:
>
> h1 { font-size: 2.6e-4em }
Is it any better to see "h1 { font-size: .00026em; }"?
> There seems to be tree arguments for allowing scientific notation:
>
> 1) transformations need it
>
> 2) it can be used as a browser switch
>
> 3) it helps CSS-SVG harmonization
#2 isn't a goal. We're not *trying* to add a new browser-detection
switch into CSS. It can be used as one, sure, but only as a fairly
bad one. It wipes out *all* current UAs. Perhaps at some point in
the future it will only wipe out a useful subset of commonly-used
legacy UAs, but for now it's not useful as a browser switch at all.
~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 10 February 2010 22:42:18 UTC