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

Re: [css3-lists] CJK numbering algorithms

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:17:07 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTinTzMASWqJMtOcNAAKfxhkWqp7GBw@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:00 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> Aside from the characters used and the filter in rule 7, are
> there other differences among the CJK styles?

Yes.

* For Chinese, interior zeros in a group, like "101" or "2002" aren't
dropped, though the second case collapses to have only a single zero
in the middle.  Japanese and Korean drop all zeros in the informal
style, but drops none in the formal (I haven't yet editted the algos
to make the formal/informal distinction).

* Chinese doesn't drop the digit "1" for the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th digits
of a group.  Japanese and Korean do, in the informal style.  Korean
also drops the digit "1" if the second group's value is just 1.

* Korean inserts spaces between the groups when they're concatenated
back together.  Chinese and Japanese don't.

I do agree that the algos need some refactoring, though, particularly
Chinese, which was written by adding to the old algorithm rather than
starting fresh.  Some things, like not dropping 0 groups until the
end, are meant to make the descriptions more clear when you're talking
about the "3rd group" and such - is it the *original* 3rd group, or
what was previously the 4th group before you removed the original 3rd
group because it was 0?

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2011 22:17:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:39 GMT