Hi Marcos,
Le 14/12/2009 16:49, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Cyril Concolato<[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Widgets-experts,
While checking some of the tests, I found some unclear processing with
regards to the width and height attribute of widget element. The spec says:
"If the width attribute is used, then let normalized width be the result of
applying the rule for parsing a non-negative integer to the value of the
attribute. If the normalized width is not in error and greater than 0, then
let widget width be the value of normalized width. If the width attribute is
in error, then the user agent must ignore the attribute."
It explicitely says "greater than 0" which means that 0 should not be
allowed, but the test suite says for c9.wgt that the result should be 0.
Argh. Right.
This seems inconsistent. On top of that, the spec seems to make the
distinction between 'null' (when in error) and '0' (not specified). From an
implementation point of view, I would prefer two cases:
- specified, not in error, greater than 0, width = the specified value
- in error or not specified, width = null, empty or 0.
Actually, I would prefer 0 since then the attribute can be implemented as an
integer not as a string.
What do you think ?
Given that a number of UAs have implemented support for getting back
the value "0", I think we should just say "greater than or equal to
0".
So:
<widget width/height=""> = Error. value remains null.
<widget width/height=" "> = Error, value remains null.
<widget width/height="abc"> returns 0, value is 0.
<widget width/height="100abc"> returns 100, value is 100.
<widget width/height="000100abc"> returns 100, value is 100.
However, I'm open to just saying return 0 upon error.
That's what I would prefer.
Cyril
--
Cyril Concolato
Maître de Conférences/Associate Professor
Groupe Mutimedia/Multimedia Group
Telecom ParisTech
46 rue Barrault
75 013 Paris, France
http://concolato.blog.telecom-paristech.fr/
