- From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 07:16:41 -0500
- To: Michael Kay <mhk@mhk.me.uk>
- CC: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Michael Kay wrote: > When we made this decision, we did discuss whether there was a need to > enhance format-number() to provide both options, and decided that this would > be feature-creep. There are higher-priority enhancements, such as supporting > exponential notation, but we're trying quite hard at the moment to enforce a > policy of "no new features". In the use case you mention, it would be > entirely acceptable to use a picture of "0.0#" and produce the output "3.0". In terms of the compiled C code, it would be. However, in terms of the source code I'm not quite so sure. Where I've seen 3. used in practice is among scientists who have a very clear picture of significant digits, and typically assume that numbers are +/-1 in the last decimal place unless specified otherwise. 3. does not mean the same thing to them as 3.0 or 3.00, even if the C compiler treats them the same. That said, this is very obscure, and I agree that backwards compatibility is more important here. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published! http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim
Received on Monday, 14 February 2005 12:16:44 UTC