- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 21:37:17 +0300 (EEST)
- To: www-style@w3.org
- cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Richard Ishida wrote:
> Three of the four browsers tested (Firefox, Opera and Safari) supported
> lower-greek rendering of list-style-type. Firefox and Opera support the
> algorithm correctly, but Safari has a bug that occurs in some ranges
> after the 576th list item.
- -
> I believe that this means lower-greek is ok for CSS 2.1.
I think that what happens after the 576th item or so is immaterial when
considering maturity for including the feature in CSS 2.1 final. As your
document says,
'No information is given in CSS 2.1 about expectations for rendering other
than this should be "Lowercase classical Greek".'
What happens after omega is left undefined (implementation-dependent);
this does not sound good, but it's quite the same problem as what happens
after "Z". Generally, browser support to numbered lists with more than a
few dozens of items is lousy, and authors should therefore avoid long
lists, in practice. It's not an urgent matter to fix specifications and
implementations in this respect.
What matters is that lowercase Greek is needed both by the Greek and the
international scientific community, which sometimes uses lowercase Greek
letters for numbering in texts in different languages. Thus, there is a
need, and there is a reasonable specification, and there are adequate
implementations for the range from alpha to omega. There are no open
questions when considerations are restricted this way, and the most
important browser that does not implement the feature properly (IE) does
not mess around with it but simply ignores it and uses common ("European")
digits instead - which is something that authors using CSS should always
be prepared to.
However, the wording is unnecessarily obscure. What's "classical Greek" in
this context? The real classical Greek - roughly, the Greek language
spoken and written in the age of Perikles - had no lowercase letters. How
would the numbering alpha, beta, ..., omega be different in modern Greek?
The word "classical" is unnecessary and might just raise the question
whether the sequence contains some ancient letters that were used for
numbering in the old times.
And when the Latin letters are specified as a, b, c, ..., z, it is odd
that the Greek letter list is open-ended. I think it should explicitly
terminate with omega, since the note "This specification does not define
how alphabetic systems wrap at the end of the alphabet" would then apply
to the Greek letters as well.
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Sunday, 5 August 2007 18:37:26 UTC