- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:25:07 +0000
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, Jonathan Watt <jwatt@jwatt.org>
On Thursday 2013-01-17 20:13 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2013, Jonathan Watt wrote: > > If the step base considered the 'minimum' instead of the 'min' content > > attribute, then the step base would be zero, and thus the value would > > settle at zero. > > Right, but that would be highly unlikely to make sense, because it would > mean the value the author set was an invalid value. You shouldn't be > forced to specify the minimum if you're already specifying a step and a > value and the default minimum of zero is adequate. That still seems like a surprising behavior (and it entirely disables step constraints in a peculiar set of cases). It would seem better to either: * infer the step base from the minimum whenever there is a minimum, or * when inferring the step base from the default value (the value content attribute), apply the minimum and maximum to the default value -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Friday, 18 January 2013 11:25:34 UTC