- From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:26:44 +0100
- To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On 14 Jul 2007, at 20:48, Robert Burns wrote: > As for whether 110% is a valid ratio for these elements, that's > something to be worked out (as your recent exchange with Ian > indicates [1]). I don't have have a strong opinion on that either > way. Though passing 110 and % should just treated consistently with > whatever is decided for improper fractions. In other words if > improper fractions are rearranged then, perhaps, so too should > 110%. However, if something like 112 / 87 is permitted, then so to > should 110/100 for 110%. However, turning 110% into 100/110 seems > even more presumptuous than treating a 112 preceding an 87 as 87 / > 112. Currently 110% is conformant, but is changed to 100% within the UA (as per the UA conformance requirements). I'd rather it wasn't conformant, on grounds that the UAs output will result in minimum value ² actual value ² maximum value. Likewise, the conformant 112/87 results in 0 ² 87 ² 87 within the UA. - Geoffrey Sneddon
Received on Saturday, 14 July 2007 23:26:51 UTC