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: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:09:01 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTiknFDpQ7+=X_6VqGWp9H3p7K-MExQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
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).

~TJ
Received 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