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

Re: 'æ', 'ø', and 'å ' in lists (was Re: [css3-lists] of lists and castles)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:14:51 +0200
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110426131451778662.15321cfe@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Håkon Wium Lie, Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:45:49 +0200:
> Also sprach L. David Baron:
>  > > (FWIW, I rarely see lists longer than, say 20 items. One reason why I
>  > > could not confirm the use of 'æ', 'ø', and 'å' in lists is that it's
>  > > rare for lists to get that long.)
>  > 
>  > http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19990702-064-009.html says:
>  > 
>  >   ...
>  >   # w)      tannhelsesekretær
>  >   # x)      tannlege
>  >   # y)      tannpleier
>  >   # z)      tanntekniker
>  >   # æ)      vernepleier
>  >   # ø)      provisorfarmasøyt
>  >   # å)      reseptarfarmasøyt 
> Interesting. (I wonder if they limited the number of authorsized
> professions to 29 to avoid the issue of how to number the 30th :)

All good things are 3. That content is adapted to form is common and 
not a good argument against, IMO.

Norwegian phonebooks go from A to Å. The letter Ö is not part of the 
alphabet. But is found under the letter Ø. For form reasons.

> I presume this list tradition is also used in Swedish, which ends with
> 'å', 'ä', 'ö'.
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Å#Place_in_alphabe

> So, if we want to provide a complete solution, we need to encode these
> into section 4.3. I suggest we do so, and then promptly delete section
> 4.3!
> For laws and other important documents, I'd probably not rely on
> counters and list styles -- I'd rather write the markers into to the
> document. Therefore, lists like the above example can still be encoded. 

I agree, but what pity? Something wrong with CSS or with HTML? HTML5 
includes the HTML4 ordered list formats - which HTML4 originally 
deprecated for CSS. Having the formats in HTML is safer than having it 
in CSS, because numbers are 'semantic'.

Btw,  better candidate for axing rather than 'Norwegian', is the 
"russian-full" list. I may be used in a 
Russian phone book. But otherwise not. (Later on, I have some comments 
on the other cyrillic lists as well - except Russian.)

All in all, I agree with Tab in this: rather than ditching list 
formats, one can 
cut down on the list length that is required to support.

But one could be more radical than Tab: a maximum level of 99 should be 
enough as a MUST requirement. Perhaps even less than that. Most lists 
are only made of 3-4 list items. 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2011 11:15:22 UTC

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