- From: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 09:50:19 +1000
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, "Eric A. Meyer" <eric@meyerweb.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 03/05/2011, at 8:42 AM, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > > [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. Count me in with Simon and Eric. The majority of CSS developers are going to expect 0 means 0 everywhere, and that you don't need to worry about units. Dean
Received on Thursday, 5 May 2011 23:50:49 UTC