- From: Tom Shinnick via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 20:31:14 +0000
- To: public-svg-issues@w3.org
In closing the [FireFox bug report](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1380902#c1) as 'wontfix' longsonr points to the [definition of `number`](https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/types.html#DataTypeNumber) in chapter "4 Basic Data Types and Interfaces" as an inconsistency within SVG.
```
Real numbers are specified in one of two ways. When used in a style sheet,
a <number> is defined as follows:
number ::= integer
| [+-]? [0-9]* "." [0-9]+
This syntax is the same as the definition in CSS ([CSS2], section 4.3.1).
When used in an SVG attribute, a <number> is defined differently,
to allow numbers with large magnitudes to be specified more concisely:
number ::= integer ([Ee] integer)?
| [+-]? [0-9]* "." [0-9]+ ([Ee] integer)?
```
That is, that prose definition **does not include** the "nnn." syntax defined within the SVG grammar.
Checking the SVG2 draft I see that chapter 4 was reorganized and now points to the definition of `number` in [CSS Values level 3](https://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/#numbers), which is defined there in prose much the same as the explanation above.
It must be admitted that the smallest change to produce consistency all over is to drop "nnn." from the SVG grammar. Comments?
--
GitHub Notification of comment by tshinnic
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/331#issuecomment-315460209 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 14 July 2017 20:31:20 UTC