- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:01:14 -0500
- To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Cc: Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com>, "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Is there a particular reason that a bare * needs to be supported? Andrew, you keep citing it as a necessity. It does appear to be a very slight convenience, but that's all. I wouldn't be crushed if I had to write "margin: 0 1*;" or "margin: 0 1fl;" rather than "margin: 0 *;". (With that said, I understand the mnemonic that using "*" as a unit brings - it evokes the feel of the * wildcard in regexps, in that it grabs everything that isn't otherwise specified. However, I also remember that the % unit caused some issues in calc(), leading to the WG having to adopt "mod" as the modulo function in calc rather than the more standard % glyph.) Giovanni Campagna said: > Grid Positioning copied that syntax into "grid-columns" > and "grid-rows", ignoring the existance of a "fr" unit. IIRC, the "fr" unit didn't exist at that time. Hakon introduced it relatively recently into GCPM for the border-parts proposal. I distinctly recall getting into a naming argument then, as I liked the unit "fl" (from flex) better than "fr" (from "fraction"). But seriously guys, this is a tiny, tiny issue about the name of a unit. It's totally not worth the effort. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2009 21:01:50 UTC