- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 19:29:47 -0700
- To: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
- CC: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Zack Weinberg wrote: > 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 will claim otherwise :) In my case: width: 1*; /* make its width as large as possible */ min-width: 100px; /* but not less than 100px */ And how would you translate: width: calc(100px + 1fl); for the human? > >> 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. {num}% does not fit into DIMENSION either. {num}* is conceptually the same, no? > >> 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. Grammar formally defined at http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-syntax/ Let's assume that we will have this line: FLEX ::= num '*' here: NUMBER ::= num PERCENTAGE ::= num '%' FLEX ::= num '*' DIMENSION ::= num ident Where and how it will make the grammar worse? And what is the metric for this 'worse'? What is the best? Lisp, C, Python, Perl, XML, HTML? I am serious, that is really interesting for me. > >> 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. It is not the one as you may see, percentage that is by the way conceptually close thing is there too. > > zw > -- Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Monday, 13 April 2009 02:30:23 UTC