Re: eval()

Matthew Brealey wrote:











 > Since the value is an integer (in pixels) rather than (say) 12cm, the





 > issue of 12cm-1 doesn't arise - we have one integer minus another.











No you don't. You have a length minus a integer without unit.





Some other people could say that the equation is not homogeneous.





Please do not read "cast 12cm-1px into pixels" when you have "12cm-1".











 > Yes, I know. I'm talking at the moment as being under CSS3; i.e., under





 > the UI WD, which redefines content so that this is ok.











The UI WD allows the use of content in certain cases, not for all





elements.











 > One could change this of course, so that the UA effectively validates





 > twice, and therefore the UA is required when it encounters a











I don't think so. This single validation process is a major item in CSS





and I am quite sure that Bert, the Temple's keeper as we say in french,





will follow me on that point. (hey Bert, don't play with that :-)





Preserving that is a key element in the promise some people made some





time ago (we are all getting old...) : CSS will not be a programming





language.











 > declaration, either of the type eval() that might turn out to be invalid





 > or of type that could return a null value, to remember the previous





 > declaration. For example, if there was BODY {background:  white;





 > background: eval(attr(bgcolor)) in the UA style sheet, then the UA would





 > say 'Aha! This might not be valid, I'd best not forget my earlier





 > declaration'.











This is simple to write, not so simple to implement. Oh, by the way, it





breaks the current specificity machanism...










</Daniel>






___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Achetez, vendez! À votre prix! Sur http://encheres.yahoo.fr

Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2000 08:57:26 UTC