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

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

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:11:30 +0100
Message-ID: <4F15F212.5030904@moonhenge.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
On 17/01/2012 21:31, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> 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.

Ah right (although that wasn't clear from the thread, which didn't 
distinguish between the 'content' property and the counter-* properties, 
both of which use "must" in the same way: that the keywords 'none', 
'inherit' and 'initial' must not be used as counter names).

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

Whilst the 'content' property says "such a name causes the declaration 
to be ignored", the counter-* properties don't say anything in this 
regard.  Now that I've identified this underspecified behaviour from 
this thread, I think the issue needs consideration for CSS21 errata in 
addition to being specified properly in css3-lists.

Anton Prowse
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 22:11:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:54 UTC