L. David Baron wrote: > On Wednesday 2007-10-17 14:18 -0400, fantasai wrote: >> I think at this point I'm leaning towards changing the 'page' counter to >> behave like >> the 'list-item' counter, and introducing an 'inhibit' value for >> counter-increment that >> will cause any implied counters to not be incremented. > > What's the use case for this? Why not just say that the implied > counters always increment, and if authors want something else they > should define their own counter that does what they want (or > introduce -1 increments to undo the implied ones at the same > points)? Actually, they'd want 0 increments, not -1 increments. ~fantasaiReceived on Saturday, 3 November 2007 01:19:31 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 3 November 2007 01:19:32 GMT