Re: [whatwg] [wf2] repeat-min and max
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote: Section 3.4. The repeat-min attribute specifies the number of repetition blocks that the remove button type will ensure are present each time a block is removed. Its value must be a positive integer (one or more digits 0-9 interpreted as a base ten number). If the attribute is omitted or if it has an invalid value then it is treated as if its value was zero. Is zero intentionally excluded from the permissible values? Wouldn't it be more natural to spec the integer to be non-negative? Bah. Pedant. :-P Fixed. These two attributes have no effect on the repetition model when present on elements that do not have a repeat attribute with the value set to template. Is it conforming for these attributes to appear on elements that do not have the repeat attribute (with any value; assuming that occurrence with repeat set to an integer is conforming)? You asked that in another mail. :-) The spec doesn't say it's non-conforming, so yes, it's conforming for all these attributes to be on any element, regardless of the other attributes. But they don't have any effect. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] [wf2] repeat-min and max
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote: On Apr 7, 2006, at 00:11, Henri Sivonen wrote: Is it conforming for these attributes to appear on elements that do not have the repeat attribute (with any value; assuming that occurrence with repeat set to an integer is conforming)? Hmm. Actually, step 8 in the template addition process suggest I assumed wrong. I don't understand this message. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] [wf2] repeat-min and max
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote: I hit the counterpart issue with repeat-max at: http://webforms2.testsuite.org/repetition/attributes/repeat-max/001.htm The test case is wrong according to the current working draft, because the value of repeat-max is '0' in the test case and only positive integers are allowed values (and other values are ignored). Even though repeat-max='0' does not make sense if the value permanently forbids repetition, wouldn't it make sense to allow non-negative integers so that repetition could be dynamically forbidden or allowed by changing the attribute value? I always meant positive to include zero. It now says non-negative. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] [wf2] repeat-min and max
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote: Quoting Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Even though repeat-max='0' does not make sense if the value permanently forbids repetition, wouldn't it make sense to allow non- negative integers so that repetition could be dynamically forbidden or allowed by changing the attribute value? It seems that Opera's current implementation allows for any kind of integer. Even non-sensical negative values are allowed: http://webforms2.testsuite.org/repetition/attributes/repeat-max/001.htm http://webforms2.testsuite.org/repetition/attributes/repeat-max/003.htm http://webforms2.testsuite.org/repetition/attributes/repeat-max/004.htm Negative numbers are definitely not allowed (since they don't consist of just the characters 0-9). -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] [wf2] repeat-min and max
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 02:40:53 -0700, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://webforms2.testsuite.org/repetition/attributes/repeat-max/001.htm http://webforms2.testsuite.org/repetition/attributes/repeat-max/003.htm http://webforms2.testsuite.org/repetition/attributes/repeat-max/004.htm Negative numbers are definitely not allowed (since they don't consist of just the characters 0-9). So what does the browser have to do? Act as if the attribute wasn't specified? The spec is very clear: If the attribute is omitted or if it has an invalid value then it is treated as if its value was zero. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] [wf2] repeat-min and max
On Apr 7, 2006, at 00:11, Henri Sivonen wrote: Section 3.4. The repeat-min attribute specifies the number of repetition blocks that the remove button type will ensure are present each time a block is removed. Its value must be a positive integer (one or more digits 0-9 interpreted as a base ten number). If the attribute is omitted or if it has an invalid value then it is treated as if its value was zero. Is zero intentionally excluded from the permissible values? Wouldn't it be more natural to spec the integer to be non-negative? I hit the counterpart issue with repeat-max at: http://webforms2.testsuite.org/repetition/attributes/repeat-max/001.htm The test case is wrong according to the current working draft, because the value of repeat-max is '0' in the test case and only positive integers are allowed values (and other values are ignored). Even though repeat-max='0' does not make sense if the value permanently forbids repetition, wouldn't it make sense to allow non- negative integers so that repetition could be dynamically forbidden or allowed by changing the attribute value? -- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Re: [whatwg] [wf2] repeat-min and max
Quoting Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I hit the counterpart issue with repeat-max at: http://webforms2.testsuite.org/repetition/attributes/repeat-max/001.htm Opera passes that testcase fwiw. The test case is wrong according to the current working draft, because the value of repeat-max is '0' in the test case and only positive integers are allowed values (and other values are ignored). Why is 0 not a positive integer? Don't you have positive and negative 0's? Even though repeat-max='0' does not make sense if the value permanently forbids repetition, wouldn't it make sense to allow non- negative integers so that repetition could be dynamically forbidden or allowed by changing the attribute value? ... -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: [whatwg] [wf2] repeat-min and max
On Apr 7, 2006, at 14:38, Anne van Kesteren wrote: The test case is wrong according to the current working draft, because the value of repeat-max is '0' in the test case and only positive integers are allowed values (and other values are ignored). Why is 0 not a positive integer? Because zero is neither positive nor negative. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Zero.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PositiveInteger.html Don't you have positive and negative 0's? Only in floating point values as a technical detail--not in pure math or in two's complement digital integers. -- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Re: [whatwg] [wf2] repeat-min and max
Quoting Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The test case is wrong according to the current working draft, because the value of repeat-max is '0' in the test case and only positive integers are allowed values (and other values are ignored). Why is 0 not a positive integer? Because zero is neither positive nor negative. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Zero.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PositiveInteger.html Don't you have positive and negative 0's? Only in floating point values as a technical detail--not in pure math or in two's complement digital integers. Fair enough. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: [whatwg] [wf2] repeat-min and max
Quoting Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Even though repeat-max='0' does not make sense if the value permanently forbids repetition, wouldn't it make sense to allow non- negative integers so that repetition could be dynamically forbidden or allowed by changing the attribute value? It seems that Opera's current implementation allows for any kind of integer. Even non-sensical negative values are allowed: http://webforms2.testsuite.org/repetition/attributes/repeat-max/001.htm http://webforms2.testsuite.org/repetition/attributes/repeat-max/003.htm http://webforms2.testsuite.org/repetition/attributes/repeat-max/004.htm ... -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: [whatwg] [wf2] repeat-min and max
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 18:11:55 -0300, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Section 3.4. The repeat-min attribute specifies the number of repetition blocks that the remove button type will ensure are present each time a block is removed. Its value must be a positive integer (one or more digits 0-9 interpreted as a base ten number). If the attribute is omitted or if it has an invalid value then it is treated as if its value was zero. Is zero intentionally excluded from the permissible values? Wouldn't it be more natural to spec the integer to be non-negative? Likely Hixie meant for positive to include zero. Still, whether 0 is a valid value or not is moot: invalid values are assumed to be zero, so it all functionally adds up to the same thing. I suppose stating that the value must be a non-negative integer would be more precise. -- J. King http://jking.dark-phantasy.com/
Re: [whatwg] [wf2] repeat-min and max
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:44:44 -0300, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 7, 2006, at 17:16, J. King wrote: Still, whether 0 is a valid value or not is moot: invalid values are assumed to be zero, so it all functionally adds up to the same thing. It is moot for browsers. It isn't for conformance checkers. Of course. I have no idea why that didn't occur to me. :( -- J. King http://jking.dark-phantasy.com/
Re: [whatwg] [wf2] repeat-min and max
On Apr 7, 2006, at 00:11, Henri Sivonen wrote: Is it conforming for these attributes to appear on elements that do not have the repeat attribute (with any value; assuming that occurrence with repeat set to an integer is conforming)? Hmm. Actually, step 8 in the template addition process suggest I assumed wrong. -- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
