W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > April 2009

[Bug 6811] [FT] Specification/Weights

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:18:17 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1LzfWD-00049H-JT@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6811





--- Comment #4 from Christian Gruen <christian.gruen@gmail.com>  2009-04-30 23:18:17 ---
Hi Jim,

> Yes, that is why it says "absolute value", just in case the
> implementation does support negative weights.

Oh yes.. Sorry, I mixed up "absolute" with "positive".


>> Next to
>> that, was there a special reason to use "1000" as value/introduce a
>> restriction at all? I would rather have expected a strict rule (0.0 - 1.0)
>> or no restriction at all.
>
> No special reason, just the result of the Task Force's discussion.  I also
> thought that a range (absolute value, of course) of 0.0-1.0 would have been
> just as good.  If I recall correctly, I think somebody said that they knew
> about, or had, an implementation that used larger numbers.  Since it's pretty
> arbitrary anyway, we decided to go with the 1000 top end. 

So, once again.. I currently don't see any advantage in restricting the weight
at all, so wouldn't make it sense - and simplify the specification - if the
restriction was completely discarded and arbitrary values were allowed? The
same can be said about negative weights. - Anyway, considering the
implementation point of view, it's of course no problem to add a check at this
point (although it will be have to be checked every time during runtime, if the
weight argument cannot be statically checked).

Christian


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 30 April 2009 23:18:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:57 GMT