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

Re: [css3-lists] of lists and castles

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:42:40 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTimOqWStsWC3rPbHbdCL0cmrUbeKCQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Sylvain Galineau
<sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> [Tab Atkins:]
>> I generally agree.  Supporting up to the trillions is just a bit of
>> completionism, really; once you have the algorithm to do up to 10k or so,
>> the rest is basically no effort.
>
> Not so. It has to be implemented,verified, testcases will have to be
> submitted to cover the feature...'Completionism' without a use-case is
> feature creep by another name.
>
>
>> It's not like browsers will support
>> numbering up that high, anyway
>
> Why specify something that you don't expect browsers to support 'anyway'?

Okay, then.  I think the styles are valuable to support, given that
they are used in real life.  Should we perhaps just limit the styles
to the range 0-9999?  That would cut out a decent chunk of complexity
(as it would limit them to a single "group") and still support the
*vast* majority of use-cases.

I'd have to review, but I think this would also allow me to define
several of them using the 'additive' type.  A few would still have to
be explicitly defined (the Chinese ones, in particular, due to the
zero-collapsing rule they have), but it would be less than the current
set.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 25 April 2011 16:43:27 GMT

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