On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote: > Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.: > > > > > 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? > > > > > > If we, like John suggests, drop section 4.3, I don't think we need to > > > limit the range, do we? > > > > I don't understand. Are you being sarcastic? > > No, I don't know what made you think so. I thought you were sarcastically stating that we don't need to limit the range of the styles in 4.3 if we remove them. Bad reading on my part. ^_^ > Section 4.3 currently defines ranges. For example, it says, e.g.: > > The Chinese and Japanese styles are defined for all numbers between ... > > If we drop section 4.3, do we still need ranges -- as upper or lower > bounds for list style numbering? Yes. In particular, additive systems need ranges. I may be able to remove the general concept of a range and make it something specific to additive systems (smuggling in the information via the type, like how non-repeating can specify its starting point). ~TJReceived on Tuesday, 26 April 2011 16:09:48 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:39 GMT