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

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
> 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.

I considered introducing conformance requirements for the contents of 
<meter> and <progress>, but I couldn't find any sane way to express 
requirements that are both useful and not overly limiting without ending 
up with an essay-sized set of conformance requirements.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'