Re: Lack Of Definition Of A Valid Ratio (part of detailed review of common microsyntaxes)

On 14 Jul 2007, at 20:48, Robert Burns wrote:

> As for whether 110% is a valid ratio for these elements, that's  
> something to be worked out (as your recent exchange with Ian  
> indicates [1]). I don't have have a strong opinion on that either  
> way. Though passing 110 and % should just treated consistently with  
> whatever is decided for improper fractions. In other words if  
> improper fractions are rearranged then, perhaps, so too should  
> 110%. However, if something like 112 / 87 is permitted, then so to  
> should 110/100 for 110%. However, turning 110% into 100/110 seems  
> even more presumptuous than treating a 112 preceding an 87 as 87 /  
> 112.

Currently 110% is conformant, but is changed to 100% within the UA  
(as per the UA conformance requirements). I'd rather it wasn't  
conformant, on grounds that the UAs output will result in minimum  
value ≤ actual value ≤ maximum value. Likewise, the conformant 112/87  
results in 0 ≤ 87 ≤ 87 within the UA.


- Geoffrey Sneddon