- From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:56:56 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 03/21/2013 09:47 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Daniel Glazman > <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: >> Can I ask why we just can't forbid >> unitless lengths here and make the whole thing simpler? > > Because there's no reason to, shrug. Any time you write a 0 flex > basis in the shorthand, you can instead just omit it. Note also that forbidding unitless 0 makes implementations (slightly) more complicated -- not simpler. Right now, if we've parsed two numeric components in a "flex" shorthand, then we know that the third component (if there is one) must be a length, and we can just proceed with parsing it as a length, using existing CSS length-parsing-code. However, if we have to explicitly reject unitless 0, then that imposes an additional check that we have to perform on this third component. ("OK it's a valid length! But wait -- was it unitless 0? Darn, we have to reject it".) ~Daniel
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2013 20:57:24 UTC