- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:33:19 -0800
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:18 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > Both CSS 2.0 and css3-values are clear that '0' (without units) is > acceptable as a <length>, but not as an <angle>, <frequency>, or > <time>. > > It turns out that: > > * unambiguous parsing of the new gradient syntax proposal depends > on this (in particular, that '0' is not an angle) Indeed, I noticed this as a potential problem early on, but was assured that angles weren't allowed to be unitless. > * css3-2d-transforms has a number of examples of using '0' as an > angle, e.g., 'rotate(0)' > > I think 'rotate(0)' is currently implemented in Mozilla, and I'm > guessing that, given the examples in the transforms spec, it's also > implemented in WebKit. > > > We either need to: > * decide that CSS 2.0 and css3-values are correct, change the > transforms examples, and possibly break some existing uses of > transforms, > * make a special exception for angles in transform functions, or > * fix the gradients spec in some way. > > My current inclination may actually be to make an exception for > transform functions. I wouldn't have a problem with making an exception for the transform function. I believe it's unambiguous where angles are allowed. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 18:34:18 UTC