- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:38:09 +0000 (UTC)
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > Section 3.4. > > "The repeat-min attribute specifies the number of repetition blocks that > the remove button type will ensure are present each time a block is > removed. Its value must be a positive integer (one or more digits 0-9 > interpreted as a base ten number). If the attribute is omitted or if it > has an invalid value then it is treated as if its value was zero." > > Is zero intentionally excluded from the permissible values? Wouldn't it > be more natural to spec the integer to be non-negative? Bah. Pedant. :-P Fixed. > "These two attributes have no effect on the repetition model when > present on elements that do not have a repeat attribute with the value > set to template." > > Is it conforming for these attributes to appear on elements that do not > have the repeat attribute (with any value; assuming that occurrence with > repeat set to an integer is conforming)? You asked that in another mail. :-) The spec doesn't say it's non-conforming, so yes, it's conforming for all these attributes to be on any element, regardless of the other attributes. But they don't have any effect. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2006 02:38:09 UTC