- From: (wrong string) äper <christoph.paeper@tu-clausthal.de>
- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 15:38:01 +0100
- To: <www-html@w3.org>
David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>:
>
>> Either a signed decimal number with optional signed two digit exponent
>> and mantissa separated by a dot (e.g. -1.2345E+03),
>
> Some non-transcendental number can be represented exactly in finite
> strings but not in this format.
I probably should have looked up an existing rule for representing numbers
and refer that.
>> ISO [ISO 8601]
^insert "date"
> I'm also concerned that this would be an excuse for presentational
> hacks in the element contents, when a semantic language requires that
> the content be meaningful in its own right.
Can you provide an example, please? I cannot see a reason for your fears.
>> Dimension
>> A case dependent string describing a dimension according to table 1:
>
> Much too complex for HTML,
It isn't really, it just looks like, because there are so many tables. If
there was a normative resource I'd been aware of, I would have cited that
instead. In practice you wouldn't care much, just hack in the unit you
desire -- it should be there, if common.
Probably just keywords were better than '&' or '*', though.
When dividing datetimes and other numbers into two elements, the dim
attribute would become even simpler. I included a preceding dollar sign
('$') for currencies, which might as well be hyperfluous.
I forgot units like px, pc and pt; where the last collides with the unusual
'pico ton' (aka µg).
> and inevitably going to become out of date.
Huh? I'm pretty sure SI units and ISO date are going to outlive HTML.
Christoph Päper
Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2002 09:38:26 UTC