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: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 19:04:45 +0100
Message-ID: <20175.55485.798443.368063@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.:

 > >  > >   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.)

That's a very good reason for writing it out. So, yes, I'd like to see it.

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Friday, 25 November 2011 18:05:21 GMT

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