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

Re: [css21] is 'initial' a valid counter name?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:31:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDZubx=m3goYc08VuD+ratVGx7g8naVgWN=mvL4cE4cKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:54:31 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ·         ‘initial’ was not a keyword in CSS2.1. Was it a forward-looking
>>> extension? Is it still relevant?
>
> [...]
>>>
>>> ·         How normative is the CSS2.1 text? Does it actually mean that
>>> the
>>>
>>> value is invalid, or is it just discouraged?
>>
>>
>> It uses 'must', so it's a normative requirement.  Unfortunately, it
>> appears to be author conformance criteria, as there is nothing
>> specifying what implementations should do if authors *do* specify a
>> counter with that name.  (The Lists module *does* specify this as
>> implementation conformance, by stating that it makes the
>> @counter-style invalid if you use one of the reserved names.
>
>
> In CSS21, 12.2 (The 'content' property) says:
>
>  # <counter>
>  #     [...] The name must not be 'none', 'inherit' or 'initial'. Such
>  #     a name causes the declaration to be ignored.
>
> If you think this is not actually suitable in the light of what css3-lists
> says, please can you comment.

It's not suitable, as it addresses a completely different property.
The MUST requirement we're talking about is on the counter-*
properties.

However, it doesn't matter that much, since Lists will be obsoleting
that section, and it's defined properly in Lists.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 20:32:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:48 GMT