Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com> wrote: > > How is > > width: calc(100px + 1fl); > > different from > > width: 1fl; > min-width: 100px; It may or may not be semantically different; I claim my version is easier to understand. > I do not see how use of '*' makes syntax worse. What exactly is > causing problems in your opinion? Not fitting into the DIMENSION production will cause trouble down the road. > About 'fl'. lowercase 'L' is not desirable in length units as it is > close to the '1' in monospaced fonts. And 'f' belongs to hex digits - > may cause some inconsistencies in future. I'm not insisting on 'fl'. I am, however, insisting on an IDENT. > I even would allow use of '*' without any number with the meaning that > '*' alone is exact equivalent of '1*' Even worse for the grammar. > Allowance of '-' in names in CSS created precedent that we need to > deal with forever. I mean that handling of '*' is exactly the same as > handling '-' as part of name token and as a minus sign. One special case is far better than two. Once you have two, it is harder and harder to argue against more. zwReceived on Monday, 13 April 2009 01:51:41 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:35 UTC