W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > April 2013

[Bug 21599] format-number() integer-part grouping overly prescriptive

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 14:57:31 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-21599-523-alJ73AQCV3@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21599

--- Comment #2 from Paul J. Lucas <paul@lucasmail.org> ---
I'm asking that things are left more to the discretion of the implementation. 
There's simply no need for the kind of implementation details that are
currently there in the specification.  As long as the implementation yields the
same result, who cares how it's implemented?

I think the language can be simplified (made less prescriptive) by using very
similar language to that of format integer, to wit:

The position of grouping-separator-signs within the integer part of the
sub-picture, counting backwards from the last digit, indicates the position of
grouping-separator-signs to appear within the integer part of the formatted
number. If grouping-separator-signs appear at regular intervals within the
integer part of the sub-picture, that is if grouping-separator-signs appears at
positions forming a sequence N, 2N, 3N, ... for some integer value N (including
the case where there is only one number in the list), then the sequence is
extrapolated to the left, so grouping-separator-signs will be used in the
integer part of the formatted number at every multiple of N.

BTW: I probably also should have included in this bug that the fractional part
is likewise overly prescriptive.  I would suggest the wording for the
fractional part be changed to:

The position of grouping-separator-signs within the fractional part of the
sub-picture, counting forwards from the first digit, indicates the position of
grouping-separator-signs to appear within the fractional part of the formatted
number.

BTW: since the spec does NOT mention anything about "regular intervals" N, 2N,
3N, ..., for the fractional part, I assume that means that the sequence is NOT
extrapolated as far as necessary to accommodate the largest possible fractional
number -- or is is supposed to?  If is is supposed to, then it MUST say so.

If there is no extrapolation to be done for the fractional part, then I'd
highly recommend that a Note be added to the spec saying so (in the same spirit
as the the existing note saying that there is no maximum integer part size).  I
can file a separate bug for this if you like.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 6 April 2013 14:57:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:52 UTC