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

Re: [css3-lists] CJK numbering algorithms

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:08:32 -0700
Message-ID: <4DAF8390.5090306@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org, Ambrose Li <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
On 04/20/2011 04:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> 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?

Chinese. "一百零一" seems excessively explicit for list numbering...
Granted it's been awhile, and my Chinese is rusty. I could very well
be mixing things up.

> 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.

Was that for spoken / prose styles or list numbering? (They might be
different.)

~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 21 April 2011 01:09:04 GMT

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