You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 30, 2019. It is now read-only.
All the pieces are somewhere in the spec. But the linking from the explanation of type="number" is poor.
As an example, when someone in the US types 1,234 they usually mean one thousand two hundred and thirty-four. But in most of continental Europe, it means one, and two hundred and thirty-four thousandths (say that nine times quickly…)
Since this is editorial, setting it tentatively for between the June WD (which will be the last to take substantive changes for 5.1) and the CR draft itself.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Note that the example given in the original bugzilla entry is in fact invalid because the value attribute should follow the microformat. The presentation of the number might be localized, though.
That is:
<!-- lang attribute for illustration, note decimal point -->
<input type="number" value="1.234" lang="de-DE">
Might be displayed something like:
[ 1,234]
The value should follow the wire format, which should be locale neutral. Otherwise that way madness lies.
I18N is satisfied by the changes here, but I opened this issue over a minor quibble about wording. Putting this comment here so I don't repeat the exercise of tracking the close.
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
From https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21762
All the pieces are somewhere in the spec. But the linking from the explanation of type="number" is poor.
As an example, when someone in the US types
1,234
they usually mean one thousand two hundred and thirty-four. But in most of continental Europe, it means one, and two hundred and thirty-four thousandths (say that nine times quickly…)Since this is editorial, setting it tentatively for between the June WD (which will be the last to take substantive changes for 5.1) and the CR draft itself.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: