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

Re: [css3-lists] CJK numbering algorithms

From: 신정식 <jshin1987@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 21:45:30 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=5cRCmbsVk_QrRdABhU04T+apUrg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "CJK discussion (public-i18n-cjk@w3.org)" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote:

> > 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?
>

 "korean-hangul-formal" can be added with the same set of markers and digits
as korean-hangul-informal. The only difference would be the way digit 1 is
dropped/kept. korean-hangul-informal wil drop '1' while korean-hangul-formal
keeps '1'.

As for digit 0 in korean-hanja-informal, I think U+3007 is better (sorry I
forgot to mention it earlier). For korean-hanja-formal, U+96F6 is still
good.

For korean-hangul-{formal,informal},  I'm not sure whether U+3001
(Ideographic comma) is a good choice or not. Perhaps, I have to try
Korean-made word processors and see what they do.

And, there's one more type to add that I forgot to mention when I gave a
feedback about cjk list types. That corresponds to spell-out-native
at

http://www.unicode.org/repos/cldr/trunk/common/rbnf/ko.xml

As a list type, perhaps, it's better to restrict it to [1, 99]. Following
the naming scheme used for other types, I'd call it 'korean-hangul-native'.
I'll get back to you with an algorithm.

Jungshik





>
> 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 Saturday, 23 April 2011 04:45:59 GMT

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