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

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

From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:43:58 +0100
Message-ID: <20179.40494.2730.759969@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
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.  ^_^

I'm using octal as an example. The same arguments can be made for the
other types, too. However, I don't want to go through the list; the
burden of proof must be on those that want things included in the spec.

 > >  > 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.

Agree, this would allow us to make rapid progress. 

I also think it's good to publish a set of proposed list-styles. But
I'm not conviced it should be a REC-track listing of predefined styles
that must be distributed by all UAs.

 > >  > >  - 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?

Either, both, anything you have.

 > >  > >  - 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.

It wouldn't be a UA style sheet, it would be an author style sheet
hosted by W3C. It can be included in an author style sheet with (say):

  @import url(http://www.w3.org/style/css/list-style-types.css);

This is similar to the CSS core styles, Google Fonts etc.; UAs are not
forced to distribute them, but they are offered online to authors who
would like to use them.


              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Monday, 28 November 2011 14:44:42 UTC

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