- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:25:19 -0400
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Majid Valipour <majidvp@chromium.org>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
On 07/06/2015 05:03 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Majid Valipour <majidvp@chromium.org> wrote: >> According to snap points spec, repeat(<length>) only allows positive length >> values. This is reasonable because negative or zero length values do not >> make sense as a repeat value. >> >> At the same time, length can be a calc in which case according to CSS Values >> spec[1] its range should be a closed one which is at odds with the open >> range that 'positive' implies. >> >> For example, what is the expected behaviour for: >> repeat(calc(-10%)) >> repeat(calc(10px - 10%)) /* can be positive or negative depending on size */ >> >> Perhaps we can allow 0 in repeat but make it a no-op? > > Yes, this should use strategy #1 from > <https://wiki.csswg.org/spec/limited-ranges>, and define a minimum > value (or say that there is a UA-specific minimum value). I'd be fine > with a minimum of 1px. This makes sense to me, and matches css-break (where we enforce 1px minimum for the fragmentainer). > (Now that you mention it, *every* usage of "positive (or non-negative) > length or you're invalid" in CSS has to be handled, actually. With > calc(), you can't always tell that it's non-negative until layout > time, so you can't just assume that every value that survives is > definitely non-negative.) Yeah, we specify that here: http://www.w3.org/TR/css-values-3/#calc-range ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 19 October 2015 19:25:50 UTC