W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2013

Re: [css-counter-styles-3] cjk-ideographic: trad-chinese-formal or -informal ?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:32:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDACwrrBGd26=cG97HpAdVkVmK8NVvN9YDiHTtiEE=uwkw@mail.gmail.com>
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.


Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 16:33:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:08 UTC