- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:30:00 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, "Simon Sapin" <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style@w3.org
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:19:57 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> > wrote: >> This predates me, so I can neither blamed or praised for it, but I do >> support the current wording. The only use of 0, with or without unit, >> on the >> resolution media feature would be to detect support for it, and this >> can be >> achieved with (resolution). Any other use is non nonsensical, so it is a >> reasonable to disallow them. > > The only real argument I still have against this restriction is that > it means that 'resolution' has an open range, and we generally avoid > open ranges. A valid point. I'd probably agree if we were discussing this upfront. Now that it's a deployed technology, I am not sure the small gain is enough to justify the cost of changing. I'd prefer leaving it as is, but this isn't a strong preference. - Florian
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 16:27:36 UTC