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

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:51:19 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0808212350180.14795@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
```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 ² actual
> value ² 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.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
```
Received on Thursday, 21 August 2008 23:51:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:37 UTC