- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:56:28 -0700
- To: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
On Wednesday 2011-09-28 18:45 +0000, Arron Eicholz wrote: > On Wednesday, September 28, 2011 7:14 AM Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Arron Eicholz > > <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > Unfortunately we defined 0 to be both positive and negative. > > > > Wait, we did? Dammit, that means I probably have language that needs > > adjusting in my specs. I assumed that if you wanted to include zero you used > > "non-negative/positive". > > The problem is that 0 can take signs. Since it can then we have to be explicit about it. If you say 'positive' then +0 is valid, similar issue with 'non-negative'. However, -0 would of course not be valid for 'positive' or 'non-negative'. We just need to be clearer when it comes to writing text about values. > > We should get in the habit of saying 'non-zero' if we want to exclude 0. Is there a source you're getting this from, or are you just making it up based on your intuition? What you said explicitly disagrees with CSS 2.1, which says: # -0 is equivalent to 0 and is not a negative number. in http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#numbers . It also explicitly disagrees with the two dictionaries I just checked for the definition of "positive". -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2011 18:56:55 UTC