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

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

From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 03:47:57 -0800 (PST)
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, HÃ¥kon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Message-ID: <2134370132.688.1322394477649.JavaMail.root@zimbra1.shared.sjc1.mozilla.com>
Tab wrote:

> >  > > - 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.  ^_^

I think it makes more sense to let authors use the expanded
functionality first before deciding what to include in the required
list.  Common usage will dictate which of these are important and
provide insight into what's needed.  I really doubt that the WG has
the ability to verify both the importance and accuracy of the slew of
required definitions currently included in section 10.  Put them *all*
in an informative appendix, then see what authors actually use and how
they use it.  That way user agents won't need to carry around unused
definitions simply for conformance.


John Daggett
Received on Sunday, 27 November 2011 11:48:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:52 UTC