W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: <progress> element and attributes vs. content

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:29:28 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0908142129w5af22541mff9e8777ff879fca@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Adrian Bateman<adrianba@microsoft.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 14, 2009 3:56 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.<jackalmage@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Indeed.  ;_;  I hate the ./, swap between various continental
>> > languages.
>> >
>> > I would be inclined to take the English tradition (, as thousands
>> > separator, . as decimal separator) as the default, as it is more
>> > common on the web than the other.  Otherwise, there is *literally* no
>> > way to resolve the ambiguity.
>>
>> By that logic I would say that we should use Mandorin or Hindi/Urdu
>> tradition as those are more commonly[1] spoken languages than English,
>> thus I think it's a good guess that eventually they will be more common
>> on the web.
>>
>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers
>>
>> / Jonas
>
> It seems unreasonable to end up with a spec that works or not depending upon
> which language you are using. I don't think it matters which language it works
> for; if there are common languages it doesn't work for (and it seems like this
> is the case) then I suggest we should drop the content parsing from the spec
> and instead rely on the attributes.

Agreed, unfortunately.

/ Jonas
Received on Saturday, 15 August 2009 04:30:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:50 UTC