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

RE: [css3-lists] CJK numbering algorithms

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 23:32:26 -0400
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "CJK discussion (public-i18n-cjk@w3.org)" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0AC2874E4E@MAILR001.mail.lan>
> I've made the change and rearranged the sections accordingly.  Can
> everyone check out
> <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-lists/#cjk-counter-styles> and make sure
> I haven't done anything dumb?

Thanks Tab, this looks great. Allow me to make two comments:

* The fallback is used only for Korean, so I can't speak for them much, but I guess ''cjk-decimal'' might work better. Glyphs are closer, and the behavior in vertical writing is more similar.

* Digit 0 for japanese-formal. It's not a big deal since it's used only for value "0", but I'd like this be U+3007 as well.

OOXML/ODF spec says this style doesn't use digit 0, but a quick reverse engineering shows that they use U+3007 (or maybe they fallback to japanese-informal or cjk-decimal, the spec isn't clear about this.)

Also, you're right that lists don't use decimals, if authors put decimals in text, using different glyphs of digit 0 for lists and text doesn't look very good.

As I said before, both are correct. Both are Han characters. It's a matter of preferences, so I'd prefer U+3007 for the reasons above.

I hope the guy in your team understands this, but if s/he strongly insists, I can live with it.


Regards,
Koji
Received on Friday, 22 April 2011 03:32:56 GMT

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