W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > November 2011

[Bug 14548] Grouping Content: algorithm for incrementing value (OL->LI @value) does not match any current user agent

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 17:15:23 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RLHvn-0008WF-Fb@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14548

--- Comment #6 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2011-11-01 17:15:21 UTC ---
> I wonder if "conforming limits" might be useful. Implementation limits are
> essential, because some kind of limit is unavoidable.

In general I've tried to avoid specifying such limits because over time,
different limits become possible. e.g. what is a reasonable limit on a 32bit
system is not on a 64bit system. Some UAs may get some benefit from using one
or two of the higher-order bits for some internal state, making the ideal
number for some browsers different than others. I think authors understand that
when they push the limits, the results won't be the same everywhere;
furthermore, as the "correct" behaviour at any particular number is clear, the
risk of us eventually relying on a particular vendor's error handling for these
cases is limited compared to other situations on the platform.


> Realistically, I can't
> think of a scenario where a list is practical beyond a few thousand entries, or
> is useful with starting numbers beyond a few million.

What about a list that talks about who owns what dollars of the US debt? One
could easily imagine a list with a few list items with values in the trillions.
Or a list where the values are distances from earth; one could then imagine a
list with truly astronomical numbers if the units used are meters.


> Also, whatever the limit is - even if unspecified - the spec. should describe
> the behavior when exceeded.

The behaviour is described. It just keeps going. :-)


> I do wonder if it might be better to require either completely-conforming
> values or else discard the entire sequence. I don't really think that a value
> like "324fq!n6ireb" should return "324". How commonly is this relied upon by
> authors? Is this for some kind of DOM- (as opposed to source-) level safety
> catch for authors that set attributes with strings instead of integers?

I'm pretty sure we can't change this, for legacy compat reasons.


> Really, I would imagine that the best idea of what do, exactly, would come from
> considering the question: is this mostly for the benefit of legacy documents,
> or is there some reconsideration of where list values fit in the
> content/structure/presentation triumvirate?

Both.


> Absolutely, although the question that I'm asking is: what is the spec trying
> to achieve, given that it's currently another standard to add to the half-dozen
> other de facto standards that can be seen now. Is it supposed to unify behavior
> going forward, or is it supposed to bridge behavior for those catching up? Or
> both? That will pretty much indicate what is better.

Both.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2011 17:17:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 1 November 2011 17:17:29 GMT