- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 23:30:18 +0000 (UTC)
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, Jonathan Watt <jwatt@jwatt.org>
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013, L. David Baron wrote: > On Thursday 2013-01-17 20:13 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2013, Jonathan Watt wrote: > > > If the step base considered the 'minimum' instead of the 'min' > > > content attribute, then the step base would be zero, and thus the > > > value would settle at zero. > > > > Right, but that would be highly unlikely to make sense, because it > > would mean the value the author set was an invalid value. You > > shouldn't be forced to specify the minimum if you're already > > specifying a step and a value and the default minimum of zero is > > adequate. > > That still seems like a surprising behavior (and it entirely disables > step constraints in a peculiar set of cases). > > It would seem better to either: > > * infer the step base from the minimum whenever there is a minimum, > or > > * when inferring the step base from the default value (the value > content attribute), apply the minimum and maximum to the default > value Why? (When does it entirely disable step constraints?) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 18 January 2013 23:30:44 UTC