W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2009

Re: Counter-increment is not clear in CSS21 and CSS3 (was: Re: Bug in IE8?)

From: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:06:37 +0100
Message-ID: <EDA64A97B91D47E3B187E3DB4B971DA6@FREMYCOMPANY>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: "CSS 3 W3C Group" <www-style@w3.org>
From: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 1:45 AM
> On Thursday 2009-03-12 22:21 +0100, François REMY wrote:
>> But, I just found another problem : The spec isn't clear about how the UA 
>> must
>> treat 'none' as value for counter-increment. In fact, the prose NEVER 
>> talk about
>> the effect of 'none'. So, the browser should treat none as a non-effect 
>> value, if it
>> can't understand it otherly.
>
> I agree that the spec should be clarified here.
>
> I think IE8's behavior (not accepting 'none') is incorrect.  But I
> also think Gecko's behavior (it rejects 'none 1' but accepts 'foo 1
> none 1') is incorrect.
>
> I think we probably want to say that either:
>
> (1) 'none' is a valid value on its own, but any value containing
> 'none' as a counter name is invalid, or
>
> (2) 'none' as a value on its own means that no counters are
> incremented/reset, but use of 'none' in any other values implies
> that there is a valid counter named 'none'.

I personnally propose the (2) to be chosen, because it's the 'most normal 
way' to
handle the things. We just say that 'none' is a specific value that can't be 
interpreted
as 'none 1'.

>
> Note that the same issue is present with 'inherit' and (in css3)
> 'initial'.

Yes, and no. Yes, the spec itself don't speak about them, but a globaler 
spec define
clearly the behaviour when we have prop: initial and prop: inherit.

No spec says what do to when we have prop: none.
So we need to consider 'none' as 'none' 1 here.

> -David
>
> -- 
> L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
> Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/
> 
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 16:07:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:17 GMT