W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2002

Re: css3-lists: Coptic and Ionic Greek

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 02:14:40 +0000 (GMT)
To: Christos Cheretakis <xalkina@otenet.gr>
Cc: Web Style Sheets W3C Mailing List <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0212170108190.17087-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Christos Cheretakis wrote:
> >
> > This is the only system that is not defined for such an odd range of
> > numbers. Are you really sure that modern greek numbers are only defined in
> > the range:
> > 
> >    1..89, 100..189, 200..289, 300..389, 400..489, 500..589, 600..689,
> >    700..789, 800..889, 1000..1089, 1100..1189, 1200..1289, 1300..1389,
> >    1400..1489, 1500..1589, 1600..1689, 1700..1789, 1800..1889, [...] 
> >    889700..889789, 889800..889889.
> > 
> > ...?
> > 
> > That seems incredibly inconvenient.
> > 
> 
> Well, we don't really use it for long lists!!! Decimal would be 
> preferrable for those cases!

Given the mess here, would you be particularly opposed to making the
*-modern-greek numbering styles be only defined in the range 1..89?

That would remove the space problem rather neatly too.


>> How about ancient-greek, lower-greek, upper-greek, lower-greek-alpha,
>> upper-greek-alpha?
> 
> I'd really have no objection for the modern styles to be called 
> either lower-modern-greek/upper-modern-greek or lower-greek/upper-greek. 
> I guess the first one is more precise, while the second one's a bit 
> shorter and more convenient. I'd surely hate to see the existing 
> implementations be called simply lower-greek. But I'm sure you already 
> know that ;-) lower-greek-alpha & upper-greek-alpha sounds better for them.

Ok, I think I'll go with ancient-greek, lower-greek, upper-greek,
lower-greek-alpha, upper-greek-alpha. If, once the spec reaches the end of
the CR period, we find that implementations have used lower-greek instead
of lower-alpha-greek, maybe we'll have to change the names to match.


>> Is "numeral-sign" a (sometimes absent) suffix, or is it part of the
>> number? If it is part of the number, what would be the typical suffix? (In
>> decimal, the suffix is '.' because lists go '1.', '2.', '3.', ...)
>
> In the ancient greek style it is part of the number. In the modern 
> styles, when used in a list's context like "alpha.", "beta.", etc., it 
> would be dropped. Preferred suffix is ")", but ")." and "." are used as 
> well.

Ok, so for modern I won't mention numeral-sign, and I'll make the suffix
")".


> > Cool, thanks. (FWIW, all i need are the codepoints. The rest means very
> > little to me. :-) I use the codepoints to include examples in the spec.)
>
> It helps me in copy-pasting the codepoints next to their names. And 
> for one, I'm only sure about the iso7 column!!!

Since my mail client (due to various reasons) treats everything as
ISO-8859-1... :-)


>>> the number of the beast would be:
>>> ancient-greek: U+03C8 U+03BE U+03DB U+0374
>> 
>> 766? :-)
> 
> Did I make a mistake, or is there another beast I'm not aware of?

Mistake, according to the tables.


> I remember Mr. Karasavidis referring to a page of the greek Ministry
> of Culture for their service offices, but I cannot get to that URL
> right now.

That would be very useful.


> I've also found a list of the tax service offices at
> http://www.e-oikonomia.gr/ipiresies/doy/kodikoi_doy.htm . Some of them
> are numbered after the algorithmic style, but the biggest number I've
> seen is 23 (kappa-gamma).

That page is unavailable for me. :-(

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 16 December 2002 21:14:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:18 GMT