At 02:05 PM 5/27/02 -0400, Patrick Lam wrote: >I stumbled across the following comment: > > /* > Jeff, I weakened the following assert because we > *want* to represent no tabstops as an empty string. > If this isn't safe, let me know. -- PCR > */ > UT_ASSERT(p[1] /* && *p[1] */); // require value for each name > >It seems that we have a bunch of other empty props now too, like >TF's new 'display' property.
Yeah. That's my comment. It's very un-CSS-like to not have a value for a given name, and if I'd thought of a better way to spec the tabstops value, I wouldn't have made the change. Likewise I empathize with TF's decision. For good reasons, we don't use CSS's box formatting model, so there may not *be* an appropriate setting for our default behavior: - both inline and block from CSS1 are clearly wrong - both compact and run-in from CSS2 are also wrong Thus, in both cases, there's a weakly sufficient reason to *not* have a value for those specific property names. >Now, I've been working on some field code (bug: start typing in >italics and insert a field; the field does not appear in italics!) >and in fixing this bug, I get the corresponding assert in the >attributes code. > >That's because a field has an empty string "" in its param attribute. >Do we really want that? If so, I'll weaken the attribute assert too. Ick. That sounds ugly to me too. I doubt that this is by design, but you should check with Martin to confirm. Paul
