Re: [css-fonts] font-min-size initial

https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/8fa1f0cd4aa8c243575a76a0b8a9f3d9cd3891eb <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/8fa1f0cd4aa8c243575a76a0b8a9f3d9cd3891eb>

> On Mar 15, 2017, at 3:10 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday 2017-03-15 15:01 -0700, Myles C. Maxfield wrote:
>> Is there a reason to prefer one or the other?
> 
> A reason to prefer unitless lengths for initial values is to avoid
> suggesting that one unit is the preferred unit for that property.
> 
> -David
> 
>>> On Mar 15, 2017, at 10:01 AM, Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 15/03/2017 16:08, Myles C. Maxfield wrote:
>>>> Don't <<length>>s need units?
>>> 
>>> "for zero lengths the unit identifier is optional"
>>> 
>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/#lengths
> 
>>>>> On Mar 13, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Jens Oliver Meiert <jens@meiert.com> wrote:
>>>>> Why does font-min-size [1] have a unit in their initial value, when
>>>>> that value is 0? I assume this has a reason that I overlooked but want
>>>>> to rule out that it is a bug :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> [1] https://drafts.csswg.org/css-fonts-4/#font-min-max-size-prop
> 
> -- 
> 𝄞   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)