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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 18:08:09 -0600
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDA3F0Px3t1me0zrnBAn923L+9xouruf7Qk_XP42eU3z8g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote:
> Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.:
>
>  > > - 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?
>  >
>  > This is already covered by an issue.  (I'll note, though, that 'octal'
>  > isn't a very good style to question the correctness of, given that
>  > it's completely trivial.
>
> It's trivial to express, but is there a strong use case? We don't want
> to add stuff only because it's easy. When people use octal numbering,
> I believe it's part of the content. That is, when people use octal,
> it's vital for the meaning of the document that the numbering is
> displayed in octal. Thus, we're beyond styling.
>
> But maybe I'm wrong. A few samples in the wild would be helpful to see.

I'm not opposed to removing some styles.  I was just opposed to
removing the entire section because of a few styles.  ^_^


>  > Better would be some of the non-English
>  > alphabetic styles, where I'm counting on information from other people
>  > and my own transcription ability to get this right.)
>
> I'm concerned about us not getting enough review.

Sure.  If there is a concern that this will hold up Lists, or that in
an effort to *not* hold up Lists we'll push through without enough
review of the predefined styles, perhaps we could split them out into
a separate spec?  Define @counter-style in the Lists spec, but define
the predefined styles in another.  Then we won't have to worry about
the two interfering with each other's progress in either direction.


>  > >  - Issue: should we require real-world examples of all list style
>  > >   types described in this specification?
>  >
>  > Most of the styles are stated to have real-world usage in the various
>  > emails or documents that I and Hixie extracted the original styles
>  > from.  I can produce those original emails, but it would be a *lot* of
>  > work to go through and re-justify all of them.  I'm not particularly
>  > interested in doing so.
>
> Someone should speak up for predefined styles and provide samples in
> the wild. It doesn't have to be you; it would be better it the people
> who use these styles would speak up.

As I said, I can provide emails that requested some of the styles, but
not all of them - Hixie sent me all the collected feedback that he'd
obtained since he'd stopped working on the spec.


>  > > - 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?
>  >
>  > The (unstated) criteria that I used was if it's a living language and
>  > the usage was stated to be reasonably popular.  Do you want something
>  > in the spec about this?
>
> Yes. If we decide to add predefined styles we should tell people how
> they were selected, and what procedures they need to follow to add even
> more.

Sure.

>  > > - Issue: Should 'footnotes' be 'footnote' instead? (like CSS does in
>  > > "italic" and other places)
>  >
>  > Perhaps.  Do you have a strong opinion either way?  I don't.  If you
>  > make a decision here, we don't need an issue over it.
>
> I'd like to see it changed, as suggested in the past:
>
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jun/0005.html

Okay, I'll make the change once I get back to work next week.


>  > >  - 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.
>  >
>  > Up to 100 isn't really acceptable.  While *most* lists are under 100,
>  > as they're hand-coded, a significant fraction of the remaining
>  > use-cases can get very large, easily going into the thousands.
>
> If so, they can add their own definitions, no?
>
> Could you point to some real-world use cases that are up in the
> thousands? I have no doubt there are some, but it ould be helpful to
> see what they contain.

In general, or specifically for this type of list?


>  > >  - 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.
>  >
>  > Given the pain caused by software actually following doctype urls that
>  > pointed to the w3c, I doubt this would fly (and software is *supposed*
>  > to follow <link rel=stylesheet> urls!).  ^_^
>
> Yes, I meant that W3C should host the document and browsers should
> fetch it. This way, errors can easily be fixed. W3C is capable of
> hosting style sheets; the core styles from 1998 are still available:
>
>  http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/Core/

No browser, I think, would fetch a UA stylesheet from the W3C (or any
website).  That's far too fragile.  They'd push updates in the usual
way, and include the stylesheet in their own bundled resources.

~TJ
Received on Saturday, 26 November 2011 00:08:57 GMT

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