- 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