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

Re: [css3-lists] Publish a new WD?

From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:39:36 +0100
Message-ID: <20170.18056.916143.163883@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.:

 > I'd like to publish a new WD of Lists 3, and solicit review in
 > anticipation of going to LC in a few months.
 > 
 > I've gone back through the last several months of feedback and
 > integrated several pieces of feedback I'd either missed or hadn't
 > gotten around to. 

I've commented on the editors draft of the lists module [1] in the
past [2][3][4]:

[1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-lists/
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jun/0005.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jun/0505.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jun/0592.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jun/0591.html

The errors pointed out in the comments have been fixed, but it seems
that the issues raised have not influenced the draft beyond this:

   Issue 5 Hakon believes that this entire chapter (and the next)
   should be changed to informative appendixes, rather than
   normatively required stylesheets. I think it's useful to keep them
   as is.

I don't think this wording represents the technical issues at hand.
Also, I suggest not naming names. It doesn't really matter who raised
an issue, it's the technical arguments that should be stated and
debated, no? Pointers to email is fine.

Based on my comments I would suggest listing these issues in the draft:

 - Issue: Is it possible to find a syntax for several list markers to be
   written in one string? One possible solution is:

    @counter-style lower-norwegian {
      type: alphabetic;
      glyphs: 'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzæøå';
    }
      
 - Issue: Do we need predefined lists beyond what CSS2 defines? For example,
   do we need 'simple-upper-roman', 'fullwidth-decimal', 'octal',
   'upper-hexadecimal'? Do the people who need octal numbering (there
   may be some) really trust CSS to get numbering correct? 

 - Issue: should we require real-world examples of all list style
   types described in this specification?

 - Issue: If we decide that we need more predefined list types, what
   criteria should be used and how should that criteria be expressed
   in the specification? Does presence in Unicode warrant placement?
   Do we need lists for Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and other languages
   written in the Latin scripts. If not, why not?

 - Issue: Should 'footnotes' be 'footnote' instead? (like CSS does in
   "italic" and other places)

 - Issue: should we replace the numbering systems described in chapter
   11 with spelled-out lists that can be expressed without defining
   algorithms? Before deciding, spelled-out lists up to, say 100, should be
   added for comparison purposes.

 - Issue: how far do we need to count? Unicode defines list makers up
   to 20 (e.g. for parenthisized numbers, full stop numbers, and
   circled numbers) Do we need to go further? If so, how far?

 - Issue: how do we know the algorithms are correct? 

 - Issue: should the example in 8.1.4 be marked up as an example?

And a new one, not discussed in my previous comments:

 - Issue: could W3C host a style sheet with the "predefined" styles in
   it? It's easier to correct errors in this style sheet than it is to
   change/update deployed browsers.

Cheers,

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Monday, 21 November 2011 12:40:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:46 GMT