- From: Jukka Korpela <jkorpela@cc.hut.fi>
- Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 13:45:11 +0300 (EET DST)
- To: www-html@w3.org
On Sat, 10 May 1997, Jonathan Rosenne wrote: > With the risk of stating the obvious, I would like to point out that the > alpha styles are language dependent. Whenever you point out a language dependency on the Internet, you are never stating the obvious. (To a large number of people, the obvious thing is that all speak English. :-) The Cougar definition for OL looks the same as the Wilbur definition. Unnecessary but relatively harmless presentation control is provided. > I guess for Greek or Russian one would > use their own letters, for Danish or Swedish the list changes as you reach > towards the end of the list, etc. In principle, yes. Requiring that browsers take care of that looks overkill to me. A better approach is to make the specification more exact by stating that a, b, ... and A, B, ... means that the letters of the English alphabet are used. (Yes, English, not Latin. Latin has no "w", for example.) It is better to be _explicitly_ language dependent. If we tried to make it language independent, we would be in deep trouble. Language alphabets are far from being exactly defined in all cases. More exactly, a language attribute does not imply a unique alphabet with a unique ordering. > P.S There seems to be a spelling error in "arablic". I agree. At school, I was taught that it should be spelled "Arabic". With capital initial, as in "Roman". Yucca, http://www.hut.fi/%7ejkorpela/
Received on Saturday, 10 May 1997 06:45:15 UTC