- From: Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com>
- Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:56:49 -0400
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote: > Syntax 3 adds scientific notation on number tokens. IIRC this is for > compatibility with SVG, but it was mentioned on this list that SVG also > allow scientific notation on percentages and dimension tokens. Should CSS do > that too? For reference, here are the relevant bits of SVG 1.1: http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/types.html#DataTypeNumber http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/types.html#DataTypePercentage http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/types.html#DataTypeLength <number> always allows scientific notation (ignoring the attempt at compatibility with CSS2.1's <number> in pseudo-CSS contexts, which is the very thing we are changing here), and <percentage> and <length> are defined in terms of <number>. So for instance <circle cx="1e3in" cy="1e3in" r="1e2in"/> is, IIUC, a valid SVG fragment. I support, but am not wedded to, the notion of adding scientific notation to CSS <number>; but I definitely think that if we do it, we should match SVG, if only because that will allow me to remove a special case from Gecko's tokenizer. As is, the scope of the special case is narrowed but it's still there. zw
Received on Sunday, 7 April 2013 12:57:16 UTC