- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:38:30 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Christoph P?per wrote: > Ian Hickson (2008-03-23): > > On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Christoph P?per wrote: > > > > > > > > a <span>valid non-negative integer</span> greater than zero. > > > > > > Isn't that the description of a valid positive integer? If that term > > > is not used or defined yet, why not? > > > > Because "positive" is confusing to people. Some people (including me) > > think that 0 is positive. > > Sure, but I thought "non-negative integer" was used to make it clear > that zero was included. Thus for the (fewer) instances like this one, > where zero is excluded, "positive integer" becomes available. You only > need to say this once in 3.2.3., which is linked each time any way, and > thereby improve readability. You could of course adopt the other > definition of 'positive' instead. I hesitate to do this because while non-negative is clearly 0-or-higher, positive is not as clear to everyone, and I expect I would introduce far too many errors in the spec if I did it that way. > > > Why can |rowspan|, unlike |colspan|, be 0, but is then also > > > normalised to 1? > > > > It's not normalised to 1, is it? I don't understand. > > It is not, I misinterpreted this sentence: > > Its default value, which must be used if parsing the attribute as a > non-negative integer returns an error, is also 1. The default value is 1 because otherwise not including the attribute would mean the cell filled the whole table each time. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 21 August 2008 16:38:30 UTC