From: Paul Rohr (paul@abisource.com)
Date: Thu May 30 2002 - 12:20:46 EDT
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu May 30 2002 - 12:24:20 EDT