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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 12:37:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAGHoGeJ_QQKEAtD3uwTT2wrFMW4mTsz1Mge3SpNh2BcQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:08 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> 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.

Ah, yes, that's probably why I decided on "infinite" in the first
place.  Definitely sticking with the current, then.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 25 April 2014 19:38:24 UTC

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