- From: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:21:12 +0200

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. Btw., there is a typo in the first sentence of 3.2.3.1.: the second 'of' should be an 'or'. Comparison of character string length: Zero Count -oo .. +oo integer ind. 7 i -oo .. -1 negative integer ind. 16 -i non-positive integer less than zero sep. 35 ! +i<0 non-positive integer pos. 20 !+i -oo .. 0 negative integer or zero ind. 24 -i|0 non-positive integer sep. 20 !+i non-positive integer or zero pos. 28 ! +i|0 0 .. +oo non-negative integer ind. 20 !-i positive integer or zero sep. 24 +i|0 positive integer pos. 16 +i 1 .. +oo non-negative integer greater than zero ind. 38 !- i>0 positive integer sep. 16 +i positive integer greater than zero pos.* 34 +i>0 pos.: zero is positive sep.: zero has a separate state ind.: independent of choice (based on "negative" never includes zero) The second and third case (only negative integers) are virtually unneeded in HTML5. ind. sep. pos. 0 20 24 16 1 38 16 34 ? 29 20 25 On average character count supports non-positive zero (especially if combined with ind. wording), but if zero is usually included in HTML5, it may make sense to use "positive" in that way. The fully independent wording currently chosen is the worst alternative (by this criterion). So either non-negative integer / positive integer (instead of positive integer or zero / positive integer) or positive integer / positive integer greater than zero, but neither non-negative integer / non-negative integer greater than zero nor non-negative integer / positive integer greater than zero. One may consider these independet formulations, too: -oo .. -1 integer less than zero ind. 22 i<0 -oo .. 0 integer less than one ind. 21 i<1 1 .. +oo integer greater than zero ind. 25 i>0 .oO(Much fuzz about "nothing".) >> 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.

Received on Sunday, 30 March 2008 16:21:12 UTC