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

Re: [css-counter-styles] OM model for @counter-style rules

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 15:14:39 +0800
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+cuxEqzzQBFfAwffb190gBn0ORBH6xD7pQU2L20vcJQxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> > for CSSCountStyleRule I think we should avoid use of CSSStyleDeclaration,
> > and also should not use the word "style" in apposition with "counter";
> i.e.,
> > use @counter, not @counter-style; use CSSCounterRule, not
> > CSSCounterStyleRule; and define CSSCounterRule to have only the following
> > DOMString? members:
>
> I disagree with your preferred naming - we already have the concept of
> "counters" and the counter() and counters() functions, neither of
> which match the concept of a "counter style".  I think @counter-style
> is the clearest way to name the rule.
>

The problem is that CSSCounterStyleRule and @counter-style gives the wrong
impression that one is defining styles, and that something like
CSSStyleDeclaration is appropriate. The addition of 'Style' and '-style' in
both cases adds nothing and is misrepresentative (in the sense that one is
not declaring styles). There isn't anything wrong with just using @counter
or @counters (any more than there is anything wrong with using @page
instead of @page-style, @media instead of @media-style). For someone who
likes shortening every name to a minimum, it is surprising to see you
advocate a long name when a short one that is more accurate would do.


> Yeah, your suggested interface is what I was going to change it to.
>
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 07:15:27 GMT

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