[whatwg] several messages
christoph.paeper at crissov.de
Sun Mar 30 16:21:12 PDT 2008
Ian Hickson (2008-03-23):
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Christoph Päper 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 184.108.40.206.: the second
'of' should be an 'or'.
Comparison of character string length:
-oo .. +oo integer ind. 7 i
-oo .. -1 negative integer ind. 16 -i
non-positive integer less than zero sep. 35 !
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 !
0 .. +oo non-negative integer ind. 20 !-i
positive integer or zero sep. 24
positive integer pos. 16 +i
1 .. +oo non-negative integer greater than zero ind. 38 !-
positive integer sep. 16 +i
positive integer greater than zero pos.* 34
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
ø 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
non-negative integer / positive integer
positive integer or zero / positive integer)
positive integer / positive integer greater than zero,
non-negative integer / non-negative integer greater than zero
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
.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.
More information about the whatwg