W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2007

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

From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:26:44 +0100
Message-Id: <2DB996AB-0EA3-4570-A18E-0D617C31BD24@googlemail.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>


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
Received on Saturday, 14 July 2007 23:26:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:47 UTC