- From: Frédéric WANG <fred.wang@free.fr>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 08:38:14 +0200
- To: www-math@w3.org
Unitless attributes were not allowed in mpadded in MathML2: http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML2/chapter3.html#presm.mpadded And I understood the goal was to deprecate unitless values. http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML3/chapter2.html#fund.units "A number without a unit is intepreted as a multiple of the default value. This form is primarily for backward compatibility and should be avoided, prefering explicit units for clarity." In particular unitless values can lead to ambiguities: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-math/2012Jan/0030.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-math/2012Jan/0031.html For "0" (and those with no effects "+0" and "-0") it is generally clear what we want. But similarly to my comment about mglyph, I think people would expect width="20" to behave like width="20px" not like "2000%" as it is recommended for length values. Maybe it would be better (for both length and mpadded values) to do as in CSS: only allow unitless for "0" (or at least for backward compatibility, allow but deprecate it for length values): http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/#lengths Indeed, a relative "0" or an absolute "0" mean the same, whatever the unit. And in mpadded, "+0" and "-0" also mean "do not change size", whatever the unit or percent. FYI, Mozilla only implements the unitless "0" (and maybe "+0" and "-0") but this has recently be removed to align on the MathML3 spec. On 22/05/2012 22:11, Bruce R Miller wrote: > On 05/21/2012 05:54 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote: >> Can get clarification of these questions in the context of mpadded >> attributes, please? >> >> 1. Are unitless lengths valid attribute values? >> 2. Is "0" a special case where no unit is valid? >> >> In the attribute table, the description >> '( "+" | "-" )? unsigned-number (("%" pseudo-unit?) | pseudo-unit | >> unit | namedspace )' >> has no "?" following the second set of parentheses, indicating >> that there must be something following the unsigned-number. > > Indeed we had intended the "?" to allow unit-less values as we do with > other > length-like attributes --- a few paragraphs later in the text you > cited describes that case --- but in the heat of sorting out reference > & default > values, we left off the "?" in the regular expressions. > (and in the schemas generated from them). > >> That seems reasonably clear that the answer to both my questions >> is "no", but there are some possible hints elsewhere in the spec >> that unitless values might be valid, so I want to check that I am >> not missing something. > >> The default for both lspace and voffset is "0". > > Odd that we managed to mangle that as well; a unitless "0" > shouldn't have been used as the default in either case! > (it would be either invalid or circular!) > >> I guess it's quite feasible to have a default that is not a string >> that can be specified as a valid value, but it feels a little odd. >> >> Would it be clearer to specify the default value as "0em", as it >> was in MathML2? > > Indeed. > >> In the text "Each format begins with an unsigned-number, which may >> be followed by a % sign (effectively scaling the number) and an >> optional pseudo-unit, by a pseudo-unit alone, or by a unit >> (excepting %)", would it be clearer to replace "which may be followed" >> with "followed"? >> >> In the text "the resulting length is the product of the number >> (possibly including the %) and the following pseudo-unit, unit, >> namedspace or the default value for the attribute if no such unit >> or space is given", would it be clearer to replace "if no such unit >> or space is given" with "if % is specified with no pseudo-unit"? > > I think this is correct as it stands, but was intended to describe > the case where the entire percent|unit|pseudo-unit|namedspace clause > was optional. > >> http://www.w3.org/Math/draft-spec/chapter3.html#presm.mpadded > > The correction is now in the editors draft. > Thanks for bringing this up, and your attention to detail! > > bruce > > > > -- Frédéric Wang maths-informatique-jeux.com/blog/frederic
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 06:37:28 UTC