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

Re: Counter-increment is not clear in CSS21 and CSS3

From: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:09:22 +0100
Message-ID: <4F75281ACB87476BA5DA3F0AD20E3B2C@FREMYCOMPANY>
To: "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
From: "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 5:52 PM
> L. David Baron wrote:
>> 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'.
>>
>> Note that the same issue is present with 'inherit' and (in css3)
>> 'initial'.
>
> The CSSWG has accepted option 1. 'inherit' and 'initial' will be
> handled the same way.

Okay, it's not a breaking change from the spec, then.
But whatever is the decision, the prose should be updated.

>
> ~fantasai
> 
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 18:10:02 GMT

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