- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:50:30 -0500
- To: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 2/10/10 4:27 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote: > That means what I said to Chris Lilley about the style-attribute spec > is wrong. And now I'm wondering where the SVG spec *expects* scientific > notation to work. http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/types.html#BasicDataTypes says for <number>: <number> (real number value): The specification of real number values is different for property values than for XML attribute values. * CSS2 [CSS2] states that a property value which is a <number> is specified in decimal notation (i.e., a <decimal-number>), which consists of either an <integer>, or an optional sign character followed by zero or more digits followed by a dot (.) followed by one or more digits. Thus, for conformance with CSS2, any property in SVG which accepts <number> values is specified in decimal notation only. * For SVG's XML attributes, to provide as much scalability in numeric values as possible, real number values can be provided either in decimal notation or in scientific notation (i.e., a <scientific-number>), which consists of a <decimal-number> immediately followed by the letter "e" or "E" immediately followed by an <integer>. Thus an implementation of SVG 1.1 would be expected to parse scientific notation only in the XML attribute values. Then <length> is defined in terms of <number> and explicitly points to the above distinction. This does mean that you can do: <rect id="foo" width="1e3"/> but can't do: <style>#foo { width: 1e3; }</style> <rect id="foo"/> and need to use "width: 1000;" instead. I don't know what changes have been made in the SVG 2 drafts. -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 10 February 2010 22:51:08 UTC