- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:32:52 -0700
- To: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu> wrote: >> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-counter-styles-3 currently says: >> >> # cjk-ideographic >> # This counter style is identical to ‘trad-chinese-formal’ >> >> whereas previous versions (css3-lists, css-counter-styles) said >> >> # ... must be treated as an alias for ‘trad-chinese-informal’ >> >> (The change happened somewhere between 2011-04-22 and 2012-09-24, >> before the rename from css-counter-styles to css-counter-styles-3.) >> >> The browsers I've tested use -informal, and a couple of web pages suggest that >> other people are seeing it displayed like -informal in their web browser, and >> I've seen a couple of test suites that assert that the behaviour (for a handful >> of values) matches -informal rather than -formal. Searching www-style for >> strings "cjk-ideographic" and "formal", I see a thread where a couple of people >> suggest it map to -informal, and no mention of it mapping to -formal. In >> summary, I've found no mention of it mapping to -formal anywhere outside of >> this spec. So my guess is that this is a typo. >> >> If this is a deliberate change, then I suggest adding a note drawing attention >> to the change. > > Huh, that's weird. I must have messed that up somewhen. I'll make > sure it wasn't intentional, then change it back if necessary. Fixed. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 16:33:43 UTC