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 16:29:25 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTiks_8r-PJYaw7mccg-iEdcj74jwPw@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:13 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 04/20/2011 03:17 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> 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).
> What does it mean to not drop a zero? "一百一" looks correct to me.

Do you mean for Chinese, or Japanese/Korean formal?

According to the native Chinese-speaker on my team (I have a record of
the conversation, since it took place in text), the number 2002 0000
is 二千零二万, for example.

>> 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?
> Label the groups. In English you'd say "do this to the thousands group".
> So say "do this to the ten-thousands group".

That would work.

Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2011 23:30:12 UTC

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