- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 22:42:28 +0000
- To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- CC: "Eric A. Meyer" <eric@meyerweb.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
[Simon Fraser:] > On May 2, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > > > I also brought this up [1] and it seems Gradients assume zero angles > > require a unit. > > > > Given the precedent, I agree it would be more author-friendly if zero > > was allowed to have no unit everywhere. But even as someone who > > doesn't write CSS parsers for a living, I am not sure the convenience > > is worth the bug-prone ambiguity or more complex value syntax that can > > result. On balance, making length the exception - on historical > > grounds and because it is the most-used value type - does not seem > > unreasonable. But it does feel icky. > > I'm strongly in favor of unitless zero everywhere. As an author, I > wouldn't be able to remember where I need units and where I do not if the > rules differ for different values. Same everywhere is ideal. Or a single exception such as "not required for lengths but needed everywhere else". I'd be OK with either. Any more complicated is a fail imo.
Received on Monday, 2 May 2011 22:42:56 UTC