- From: Oriol Brufau via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 10:36:30 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@SelenIT The thing with calc() is that you don't know whether it's e.g. a valid length until you determine the type of the calculation and get «[ "length" → 1 ]». So more than “would produce a valid value for that property if parsed that way” I think it's “*could* produce a valid value for that property if parsed that way”.
But I agree “parsed as … in the property” is a bit ambiguous. A possible way to clarify this could be:
- Allow `<zero>` in lengths, as you suggested
> (i.e. can be syntactically represented as `<zero>`).
- In [calc() type checking](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values/#calc-type-checking) make it explicit that only a `<length>` different than `<zero>` can get the «[ "length" → 1 ]» type.
> - `<length>` different than `<zero>`
> the type is «[ "length" → 1 ]»
- Keep the note about `<number>` taking precedence over `<length>`, to still cover things like `line-height: 0`.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by Loirooriol
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4554#issuecomment-562522183 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 6 December 2019 10:36:31 UTC