- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 10:44:37 +0900
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
> On 25 Sep 2015, at 04:27, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 20:28:58 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> In some other part of this thread, we were agreeing that *for disallowed values*, it should be false rather than unknown. You don't think so? >> >> I could go either way, but "restricted" and "invalid today, but valid >> in a future level" look identical, so I'm inclined to treat them all >> the same. The effect is nearly identical anyway. > > OK, that's fine with me. Arguably, it varies by descriptor, and maybe some descriptors should instead of declaring values illegal, they should declare them as never matching. For instance, with the current definitions, (width < -1px) is unknown, but maybe having it be false would make more sense. And we might want to go as far as making (width > -1px) be true on any visual medium. - Florian
Received on Friday, 25 September 2015 01:45:09 UTC