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

Re: [css3-lists] Published as WD!

From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:43:27 +0200
Message-ID: <19966.2831.291765.605316@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.:

 > > To make the representation slightly more compact and readable, perhaps
 > > we could find a way to write:
 > >
 > > @counter-style lower-norwegian {
 > >  type: alphabetic;
 > >  glyphs: 'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzæøå';
 > > }
 > >
 > > That is, if 'glyphs' only has one string value, it is interpreted as a
 > > sequence of single characters.
 > 
 > I had thought of this, but decided against it originally.  The problem
 > is that it's ambiguous with the value of a 'repeating' or
 > 'non-repeating' type.  It's perfectly fine, for example, to have a
 > style like this:
 > 
 > @counter-style abc {
 >  type: repeating;
 >  glyphs: 'abc';
 > }

So, when does the ambiguity appear?

 > >  The ‘symbolic’ counter type cycles repeatedly through its provided
 > >  glyphs, doubling, tripling, etc. the glyphs on each successive pass
 > >  through the list. It can be used for footnote-style markers, and is
 > >  also sometimes used for alphabetic-style lists for a slightly
 > >  different presentation than what the ‘alphabetic’ type presents.
 > >
 > > I don't intuitively understand what "doubling, tripling, etc." means.
 > > An example of how this differs from 'alphabetic' would be helpful.
 > 
 > Would this be addressed by simply providing a better example?  The
 > current example symbolic style, 'unary', is unfortunately the exact
 > same if I used 'alphabetic'.  I've switched it to using
 > 'upper-alpha-symbolic' as an example, and put in a note specifically
 > calling out the difference between it and 'upper-alpha'.

Examples are good, but I still think you need to describe what
"doubling" or "tripling" means. It's defined in the pseudo-algorithm,
but that's hard to read.

How about:

  The ‘symbolic’ counter type cycles repeatedly through its provided
  glyphs. At the end of a cycle, the string length is increased by
  adding one more glyph of the same kind.

  Example:

    @counter-style foo {
	type: symbolic;
	glyphs: 'A' 'B';
    }

   will produce a list like this:

      A. 
      B.
      AA.
      BB.
      AAA.
      BBB.


 > > It's nice to see how to create simple one-glyph lists. I suggest
 > > keeping the list-style-types defined in CSS 2.1 in the list of
 > > predefined styles (circle, disc, square), but not add new predefined
 > > counter styles. For example, I don't think 'check' should be
 > > predefined. Different languages/traditions use different marks in
 > > check boxes. And if people want to use 'check' to see '✓', they can
 > > easily add it themselves.

Based on comments from Brad and Charles Belov, I can see that some
list types are common enough to warrant addition in the new specification.

 > > Section 9.3 lists Predefined Alphabetic Styles
 > >
 > > Hmm. Are all these used? Are they correct? Are they there
 > > automatically because they have entered Unicode?
 > >
 > > When in doubt, I'd rather leave it to the author to define them.
 > 
 > For the most part, these are present because the previous WD defined
 > them.  I can drop many of them, like the new repeating styles, if
 > necessary.

I suggest listing them in an appendix as examples for others to
cut/and paste from. But I don't think they should be predefined. 

I specifically suggest make all the predefined styles non-predefined
in the next version the WD.

 > > But I don't think these should be predefined. Footnote marker vary
 > > widely and sanctioning one specific list seems wrong. The
 > > 'lower-alpha-symbolic' and 'upper-alpha-symbolic' gives a slightly
 > > different result than 'lower-alpha' and 'upper-alpha', but I'm not
 > > convinced this warrants predefined status.
 > 
 > How about I move the 'footnote' style into just being a symbolic example?

Right, we should think of these -- foonote and others -- as examples,
not as prescriptions.

 > > Section 9.6 lists predefined additive styles. But are all of them
 > > really necessary? For example, do we need to predefine
 > > "simple-upper-roman" (which appears to be a variant of roman which is
 > > slighly easier to read (unless you expect real roman, that is)).
 > 
 > I've definitely seen the simple-*-roman variants used in real life.

Pointers?

 > > Given that these counter styles with can be added to any style
 > > sheet, I think we should have very strict criteria for making these
 > > counter styles predefined. We risk making mistakes, or adding styles
 > > that are never used (like we did for lower-greek, it seems).
 > 
 > What criteria would you propose?  Right now I'm more-or-less using the
 > criteria of "used at least somewhat commonly in real-life lists".

I suggest the critera to be that a counter style is actively used in
print and in web documents, so common that people hardcode them into
HTML to achieve the effects. Listing 10 different pages in the wild
would be a requirement for starting discussions.

 > > I'd say that lists are rarely numbered above 100. Thus, by listing
 > > these number systems to 100 we can remove several algorithms from the
 > > spec.
 > 
 > I'd be fine with that, except that the WG has already resolved that we
 > should define the general algorithm.

Was the other alternative presented? I suggest listing the glyphs
needed for these languages from 1-100 so that we more easily can
compare the alternatives.

Cheers,

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Sunday, 19 June 2011 14:44:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:41 GMT