RE: [CSS3-mediaqueries]: Invalid test cases in test suite

On Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:56 AM L. David Baron wrote:
> 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 .
>

I was looking at the 2.1 spec and that exact text. And my -0 case just reinforces that. The problem is +0 and also 0. What I say about +0 is still true it is positive. There is nothing in the spec to contradict that. Also 0 can still be both positive and negative there is no text to contradict that either.

What you point out in the spec only relates to -0. The subject of that sentence is -0. Therefor the 'and is not a negative number' only refers to -0.

CSS 2.1 still doesn't cover 0 exactly. What is 0? Since -0 is equivalent to 0 and is not a negative number that completely explains -0. It does not however explicitly explain what 0 or +0 is or isn't. We must therefore draw the conclusion that +0 is positive and 0 can be both positive and negative.

We need explicit text explaining this if we want to correct the ambiguity. You are making some assumptions that +0 is equivalent to 0 and it not positive but that is never stated. Also we should clarify what 0 is, is it positive? I think right now it is but should it be?

--
Thanks,
Arron Eicholz

Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2011 20:14:17 UTC