W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2011

Re: [css3-lists] Remaining feedback on the module

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:55:00 -0700
Message-ID: <4DAF4824.3030602@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 04/20/2011 11:37 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Koji Ishii<kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>  wrote:
>> Thank you for updating the ED, Tab. Here're some feedbacks from me.
>> ** 4.3.4. The Japanese "spoken-out" counter styles
>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-lists/#japanese-counter-styles
>> * Digit 0 is U+3007, not U+96F6 for both "japanese-informal" and "japanese-financial".
> I've had specific feedback from another Japanese speaker (from my
> team) that U+96F6 is more appropriate for both of those.  I'll just
> mark it as an issue for now.
>> ** 13. Appendix A: Required Predefined Counter Styles
>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-lists/#ua-stylesheet
>> * The "suffix" property for "cjk-decimal" and "fullwidth-decimal" is U+3001. Japanese uses U+3001 or U+FF0E, and Chinese uses U+3001, U+FF0C, or U+FF0E (if I understand correctly), so the choices are U+3001 or U+FF0E. I would prefer U+3001. I don't know which Chinese people prefers though.
> I'll change it to U+3001 for now.
>> * Are we dropping "cjk-ideographic" which was in CSS 2.0? It would be ideal if the value can map to "*-informal" depending on language tag.
> Yes; the only purpose of that type seemed to be to host the cjk
> algorithm.  Since the three languages all actually have slightly
> *different* algorithms, it didn't make sense to keep it.

You need to define it and map it to *something*. Features in
CSS2.0 that were dropped in 2.1 are supposed to be defined in
CSS3. You can probably alias it to trad-chinese-informal or
trad-japanese-informal, which should be consistent with the
other CJK numbering systems for any list numbers below 100.

I'm having a little trouble loading the algorithms into my
brain atm, but is the difference that Chinese says "一百" and
Japanese says "百" for 100?

Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2011 20:55:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:45 UTC