- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 16:30:36 -0800
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, www-style@w3.org
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:28 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Thursday 2011-12-01 15:30 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu> wrote: >> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 09:23, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I also note that nav-index commits the cardinal sin of allowing only >> >> non-zero positive <number>s, which means that its range is bounded but >> >> has no minimum value. This should either allow 0 or allow the full >> >> <number> range. >> > >> > Why? >> >> Not having a minimum value means we can't do things like setting it to >> its minimum value when attr() results in a number below its range. > > Strongly agreed here, by the way. So far, restrictions on ranges of > allowed values in CSS are all expressable as [1] closed intervals rather > than open intervals [2], and I'd like to keep it that way so that > it's always possible to clamp a possibly-out-of-range value to the > edge of the allowed range, as calc() does. (I don't see anything in > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-values/#attr saying attr() has that > behavior, though.) Sorry, calc() is what I meant. > [1] I think there are some that are expressed as open intervals but > still expressable as closed intervals: in particular, they were > expressed as "integers greater than 0" but can be expressed > alternatively as "integers greater than or equal to 1". Yeah, there's no such thing as an "open interval" on the integers, so that's fine. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 00:31:27 UTC