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

Reply via email to