- From: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:22:42 +0000
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
On Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:06 PM Boris Zbarsky > On 9/28/11 2:45 PM, 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'. > > I assume you're talking about -0 in the IEEE double sense here? Why is that a > concern for CSS? CSS numbers are real numbers, not IEEE doubles. > Implementations that implement them as IEEE doubles need to handle any > resulting inconsistencies, of course.... > Nope I'm not talking about IEEE doubles in any way. CSS has no concept of that for this definition and we have no normative links to reference anything of that sort at this time. It’s a concern because CSS defines what a number is and it currently isn't IEEE doubles. If we want to reference something else to clarify what/how a number is to be represented in CSS that is fine by me. I just want a clear definition that isn't ambiguous like it is now. -- Thanks, Arron Eicholz
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2011 20:23:21 UTC