W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2011

Re: [css3-animations] Times are listed as unitless

From: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 09:50:19 +1000
Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, "Eric A. Meyer" <eric@meyerweb.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <3BD3439A-83C9-449B-BAAB-7397B9B8F6E7@apple.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>

On 03/05/2011, at 8:42 AM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:

> 
> [Simon Fraser:]
>> On May 2, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
>> 
>>> I also brought this up [1] and it seems Gradients assume zero angles
>>> require a unit.
>>> 
>>> Given the precedent, I agree it would be more author-friendly if zero
>>> was allowed to have no unit everywhere. But even as someone who
>>> doesn't write CSS parsers for a living, I am not sure the convenience
>>> is worth the bug-prone ambiguity or more complex value syntax that can
>>> result. On balance, making length the exception - on historical
>>> grounds and because it is the most-used value type - does not seem
>>> unreasonable. But it does feel icky.
>> 
>> I'm strongly in favor of unitless zero everywhere. As an author, I
>> wouldn't be able to remember where I need units and where I do not if the
>> rules differ for different values.
> 
> Same everywhere is ideal. Or a single exception such as "not required for 
> lengths but needed everywhere else". I'd be OK with either. Any more 
> complicated is a fail imo.

Count me in with Simon and Eric. The majority of CSS developers are going to expect 0 means 0 everywhere, and that you don't need to worry about units.

Dean
Received on Thursday, 5 May 2011 23:50:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:40 GMT