W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2014

Re: [css-counter-styles] 'infinite' vs. 'infinity'

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 12:08:17 -0700
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20140425190817.GA26509@crum.dbaron.org>
On Friday 2014-04-25 12:00 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Friday 2014-04-25 11:27 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:40 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> > > There are multiple places in
> > > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-counter-styles/ where 'infinity' is used
> > > as a keyword value of the range descriptor, despite the valid value
> > > of that descriptor being 'infinite'.
> > >
> > > I believe some selective search-and-replace is needed.  (There are
> > > some occurrences of infinity that are not keywords, and thus ok.)
> > 
> > Or should I switch the keywords to "infinity", since apparently my
> > fingers are convinced that's what it should be?
> 
> I thought about suggesting that, but 'infinity' seems a little
> awkward as a keyword that can mean either positive or negative
> infinity depending on context, whereas 'infinite' seems a little
> less awkward in that role.

Oh, and 'animation-iteration-count' already uses 'infinite', so I
think we're better off being consistent and not using 'infinite' in
some places in CSS and 'infinity' in others.

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                          https://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
             Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
             What I was walling in or walling out,
             And to whom I was like to give offense.
               - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)

Received on Friday, 25 April 2014 19:08:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:21 UTC