W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2012

Re: [css3-lists] at-risk counter styles

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 07:29:33 +0800
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+csuR3TYPb=nqTQryz9yjYL4ePQLR2CXc7nc86Mh6PfeQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:

> We have this resolution from San Diego:
>
> RESOLVED: Move @counter-style rule and symbols() function to the counter
>             styles spec. Retain in that spec the 2.0, 2.1 and the six way
>             cjk ideographic split (which is marked at-risk). Move rest of
>             counter styles to registry on W3C wiki.
>
> I think the writing accurately reflect what we said at the time, but I'd
> like
> to request a little variation, if the group agrees.
>
> Some counter styles from 2.0 were not included in 2.1 due to lack of
> implementation. We've decided to add them back based on the argument
> that implementations have caught up.
>
> This still makes sense to me, but I would like to request that not only
> the 6 cjk counters styles, but all counters styles except the ones in
> 2.1 are marked at risk.
>
> Since the reason for including them is that they have been / are being
> implemented, that should not have any impact, but if it turns out that
> some of that are actually not being implemented, then the reason for
> including them disappears, and at-risk lets us deal with that
> quite simply.
>
> If I don't get consensus with this proposal, I can live with the resolution
> as it is, but I find it a little bit suboptimal.


+1
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2012 23:30:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:59 GMT