- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 17:15:23 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14548 --- Comment #6 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2011-11-01 17:15:21 UTC --- > I wonder if "conforming limits" might be useful. Implementation limits are > essential, because some kind of limit is unavoidable. In general I've tried to avoid specifying such limits because over time, different limits become possible. e.g. what is a reasonable limit on a 32bit system is not on a 64bit system. Some UAs may get some benefit from using one or two of the higher-order bits for some internal state, making the ideal number for some browsers different than others. I think authors understand that when they push the limits, the results won't be the same everywhere; furthermore, as the "correct" behaviour at any particular number is clear, the risk of us eventually relying on a particular vendor's error handling for these cases is limited compared to other situations on the platform. > Realistically, I can't > think of a scenario where a list is practical beyond a few thousand entries, or > is useful with starting numbers beyond a few million. What about a list that talks about who owns what dollars of the US debt? One could easily imagine a list with a few list items with values in the trillions. Or a list where the values are distances from earth; one could then imagine a list with truly astronomical numbers if the units used are meters. > Also, whatever the limit is - even if unspecified - the spec. should describe > the behavior when exceeded. The behaviour is described. It just keeps going. :-) > I do wonder if it might be better to require either completely-conforming > values or else discard the entire sequence. I don't really think that a value > like "324fq!n6ireb" should return "324". How commonly is this relied upon by > authors? Is this for some kind of DOM- (as opposed to source-) level safety > catch for authors that set attributes with strings instead of integers? I'm pretty sure we can't change this, for legacy compat reasons. > Really, I would imagine that the best idea of what do, exactly, would come from > considering the question: is this mostly for the benefit of legacy documents, > or is there some reconsideration of where list values fit in the > content/structure/presentation triumvirate? Both. > Absolutely, although the question that I'm asking is: what is the spec trying > to achieve, given that it's currently another standard to add to the half-dozen > other de facto standards that can be seen now. Is it supposed to unify behavior > going forward, or is it supposed to bridge behavior for those catching up? Or > both? That will pretty much indicate what is better. Both. -- 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 Tuesday, 1 November 2011 17:17:28 UTC