- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:01:08 -0600
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote: > 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. I don't understand. I didn't give a reason to write it out. I gave reasons *not* to write it out: it's a non-trivial amount of work for me, and there are existing examples in the spec that'll look about the same. Just squint at one of the longer additive styles. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 25 November 2011 23:01:56 UTC