Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 30, 2019. It is now read-only.

Improve documentation of i18n issues with input type="number" #343

Closed
chaals opened this issue May 5, 2016 · 5 comments
Closed

Improve documentation of i18n issues with input type="number" #343

chaals opened this issue May 5, 2016 · 5 comments

Comments

@chaals
Copy link
Collaborator

chaals commented May 5, 2016

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.

@aphillips
Copy link

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.

@chaals
Copy link
Collaborator Author

chaals commented Jun 19, 2016

Hopefully #503 closes this. If so, should be cherry-picked into the master branch so it doesn't only happen for HTML 5.1

@chaals chaals modified the milestones: HTML 5.2 FPWD, HTML5.1 CR Jun 19, 2016
@aphillips
Copy link

For WG reference, I put a lengthy comment on #503 related to the text in that pull request and some of which is related to this item.

@plehegar
Copy link
Member

b29a560 and 33f106a should address this. @chaals @aphillips ok to close?

@chaals chaals closed this as completed Oct 19, 2016
@aphillips
Copy link

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 free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants