- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 10:07:14 -0700
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org, www-svg@w3.org
On 08/28/2010 05:27 PM, Doug Schepers wrote: > * For good or ill, it's already allowed in CSS in SVG, so there's > backwards-compatibility to consider I don't recall this claim. I only remember it being allowed in SVG attribute values, which is a different thing. Are you sure of this? > How many hours of valuable time has this issue consumed, during the > face-to-face, and via email? How much tension? Is either position really > worth the effort and stress this has cost over the years? And how much > time will it eat up in the future, when we could be talking about > important or useful or cool things (I can think of a dozen off the top > of my head, can't you)? I don't think it ate up more than half an hour during this F2F, in a briefly furious argument with very little after-effects. The email threads seem longer. > I think adding e-notation is the right thing to do. But, for the sake of > moving on, I am going to propose that we take a serious look at dropping > it, not only from CSS, but from SVG 2. For SVG, obviously, this would > mean deprecating it rather than simply not including it. I'm happy with the status quo, which, I believe, is that SVG allows e-notation in its attribute values and CSS does not allow it in its property values. > What does everyone else think? See above. I understand the arguments for harmonizing number literal notation across languages, but I also agree with Håkon's argument that e-notation, especially with negative exponents and in a context where unit identifiers and subtraction are natural, is confusing. ~fantasai
Received on Sunday, 29 August 2010 17:07:53 UTC