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

Re: [css3-lists] remove "Complex Counter Styles" and "Optional Extended Counter Styles" sections

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:13:37 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBxwtZdGr4kR8CvRcMaL6O4z4bOgPsiqPmWagWMM9b8Jw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote:
> Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.:
>
>  > > - 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.
>  > >
>  > >   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Nov/0449.html
>  > >   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jun/0505.html
>  > >
>  > > I expect it to be present in the upcoming WD.
>  >
>  > That issue is already present in the ED, at the start of chapter 11.
>  > I put it in there a few days ago.
>
> Could you also add spelled-out lists for comparison purposes?

Is this actually needed?  It would take a non-trivial amount of work
to do, and you can just imagine one of the existing non-repeating
styles with a 100-long glyphs descriptor.  It doesn't have a very
surprising experience, and the visual appearance of the rule isn't a
very important detail.

Or actually, for a good example of what a verbose @counter-style looks
like, check out some of the additive styles like georgian or hebrew.

(Though, if we *did* decide that we didn't care about values past 100
or so, I'm pretty sure I could express them as an additive style in a
much shorter way than explicitly listing values in a non-repeating
style.)

~TJ
Received on Friday, 25 November 2011 03:14:27 GMT

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