W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > April 2009

[Bug 6811] [FT] Specification/Weights

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:39:42 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Lzeus-0002Og-0g@wiggum.w3.org>

--- Comment #3 from Jim Melton <jim.melton@acm.org>  2009-04-30 22:39:41 ---
> Hi Jim, sorry for persisting.. 

No need to apologize; reaching understanding is important. 

> As the current text states that "The weight MUST
> have an absolute value between 0.0 and 1000.0 inclusive.", I am not sure if
> implementation-defined, negative weights are considered at this point. 

Yes, that is why it says "absolute value", just in case the implementation does
support negative weights.

> Next to
> that, was there a special reason to use "1000" as value/introduce a
> restriction at all? I would rather have expected a strict rule (0.0 - 1.0)
> or no restriction at all.

No special reason, just the result of the Task Force's discussion.  I also
thought that a range (absolute value, of course) of 0.0-1.0 would have been
just as good.  If I recall correctly, I think somebody said that they knew
about, or had, an implementation that used larger numbers.  Since it's pretty
arbitrary anyway, we decided to go with the 1000 top end. 

> And, another trivia here.. I wonder why a weight value is defined by a
> "RangeExpr". as I would expect the weight to be always exactly one value. The
> existing rule...

>   [145] FTWeight ::= "weight" RangeExpr

> ..would allow expression such as 

>   "A" ftcontains "A" weight (1 to 2)

> which will not make too much sense. 

Of course, you're right that it would not make sense to have (1 to 2) as a
weight.  And, in fact, the language does not support that.  The use of
RangeExpr is merely an artifact of how the grammar is constructed. 

> Anyway, as usual.. if I have stopped
> thinking too early - please tell me!

No problem at all!

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 Thursday, 30 April 2009 22:39:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:27 UTC