From: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>

Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:28:03 +0200

To: www-style@w3.org

Message-ID: <op.u1fgs1j0bunlto@oyvinds-desktop>

Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:28:03 +0200

To: www-style@w3.org

Message-ID: <op.u1fgs1j0bunlto@oyvinds-desktop>

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:54:50 +0200, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >> Formula >> The latest editor's draft created one undefined case, viz., when the >> image is wider than 200% of the background positioning area. In that >> case, round(W/X) evaluates to 0 and the formula thus contains a >> division by zero. > > The draft explicitly defines round() in this formula to return the > nearest *natural* number rather than the nearest whole number, so it > will never evaluate to zero. Although I remember being taught that the set of natural numbers is the set of all (non-zero) positive integers, there apparently exists a second convention which includes 0 (see e.g. <http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NaturalNumber.html>). Personally I don't find it immediately obvious that "positive integer" excludes zero either, so I would suggest replacing "natural number" with something like "non-zero natural number" or "integer > 0". -- Øyvind Stenhaug Core Norway, Opera Software ASAReceived on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 11:28:41 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0
: Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:40 UTC
*