On Feb 11, 2008, at 11:44, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Andreas Delmelle wrote:
<snip/>
Now while going over it again, and trying to do the same for
background-position, I noticed that there is currently a testcase
--IIRC, one I added myself when implementing the background-position
shorthand-- where a specified value of "0.5" is expected to yield a
percentage... After my changes, it yields an absolute value of
500mpt.
So I re-read the Rec on this one, and it seems the first
interpretation
is wrong. If I take the spec literally, then a value of "0.5" would
actually be a length (and thus equal to "0.5px"), so the 500mpt is
correct (when using the default source resolution of 72dpi).
Before I commit, I thought I'd check to see if anyone disagrees
with the
above behavior.
In my opinion specifying "0.5" is simply wrong. The property expects,
among others, a <percentage> or a <length>. So one should specify
either
"50%" or "0.5px", but not a number alone since it becomes
impossible to
determine if it’s a percentage or a length. An error should
probably be
thrown in this case.
OK, currently FOP's behavior is to assume pixels as units for
unqualified lengths (like many HTML browsers).
As I recall, this was once requested by a fop-user. Originally, we
did throw an error for this, but apparently, for some this was too
strict an interpretation.
Just checking to see if no one depended on the interpretation
0.5=50%, but I think I'll leave the pixel-fallback in place FTM...
Cheers
Andreas
