Re: [CSSWG] CSS3 Lists on dev.w3.org

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com> wrote:
> An alternative would be to arbitrarily specify a maximum representable
> number of, say, 999,999.  This would drastically simplify the
> description for basically no practical loss in utility.  The standard
> could note that larger numbers could potentially be represented, but
> that UAs may use decimal in those cases (as they're forced to with
> many other algorithmic systems).  Do you/anyone else think this would
> be a good idea?

I certainly don't see very much utility in putting together a complex
algorithm that isn't even well-attested historically.  So yeah, just
throw a limit out there; 1M-1 is as good a place as any.

~TJ