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

Re: [css3-lists] repeating is off by one, negative in predefined styles, wording

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 07:51:52 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBn9JZK30_iremf0s2C-qFq19uU=6sYO-WY-HKbOj=icQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:07 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Four unrelated issues with Lists 3:
>
>
> The algorithm for `type: repeating` is inconsistent wit the prose:
>
> """
> The first counter symbol is used as the representation of the value 1, the
> second counter symbol (if it exists) is used as the representation of the
> value 2, etc.
> [...]
> the representation is the counter symbol at index (value mod length) of the
> list of counter symbols (0-indexed).
> """
>
> Index (1 mod length) in a 0-indexed list is the second item, not the first.
> The algorithm should be ((value - 1) mod length) instead.
>
> ----

Whoops, indeed.  Fixed.


> The decimal-leading-zero predefined counter style already gets negative
> signs through the initial value of the 'negative' descriptor. Having it in
> the symbols results in a double minus sign. The definition should be changed
> to:
>
> @counter-style decimal-leading-zero {
>        type: non-repeating -9;
>        symbols: '09' '08' '07' '06' '05' '04' '03' '02' '01' '00' '01' '02'
> '03' '04' '05' '06' '07' '08' '09';
>        /* negative: '-';  (initial value) */
> }

> ----
>
> Predefined repeating styles (disc, circle, square, and others in
> css-counter-styles) already have `suffix: ''`, but the need `negative: ''`
> as well.

Both of these issues are no longer problems, since I made the change
to how I handle negative numbers.  'repeating' and 'non-repeating'
types never consult the 'negative' property for anything; that's only
used for 'numeric' and 'additive' types.


> ----
>
> Section 8.2 describes the interaction of the counter-* properties first with
> `display: none` and then with `visibility: hidden`.
> Both use "no effect", but with opposite meaning. Though grammatically
> correct, this wording is a bit confusing.

I've reworded it.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 15:52:40 GMT

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