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

Re: [css3-lists] Negative counter values

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:43:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAO1WZhgEHGT6MfyT9fPL07ApM8mO66cK6FUeaq0F8n1Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Section 8 of Lists 3 has an algorithm to "generate a counter
> representation". Step 2 says to use the absolute value for the rest of the
> algorithm, but this is not what we want. For example, with the 'repeating'
> type, we want the values -1 and -2 to be represented by the last and
> second-to-last symbols, respectively (assuming two or more symbols). Using
> the absolute value would result in using the first and second symbols.
>
> The "absolute value" part of step 2 should be removed and the algorithm for
> some type adapted:
>
> * repeating: the modulo on negative dividends must be consistent with the
> above
> * numeric: take the absolute value before the rest of the algorithm
> * other types: unchanged.

I agree, and was thinking about this very issue yesterday.  Good
timing!  Fixed.  (I also made additive styles use the absolute
value+negative sign thing, as they're used to generate some complex
numeric styles.)


> While we’re at it, it would be good to replace every occurrence of
> "positive" and "negative" (for integer values) by either "strictly
> positive/negative" or "positive/negative or zero".

The CSS specs use the proper definitions of "positive" and "negative"
(excluding zero) throughout, so I've stuck with that generally.
However, I have adjusted a few uses of "positive" to "strictly
positive" where I think it helps clarity.

> PS: I write about various issues as I find them. Would it be better (less
> spam-ish for the list or easier for editors) to aggregate them and send a
> single email every now and then?

Whatever is easiest for you.  Multiple small emails are fine for me,
as it's faster to address them, but a single large email is also fine
for me.  It makes no difference to me.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2011 18:44:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:47 GMT