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

Re: [counter-styles] i18n-ISSUE-282: Problems with Ethiopic-numeric algorithm

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:24:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBh8Wqpb3XPmSsd2VBgvSAS-mEuqJTEz_Rj=sQczcuH=g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Cc: www International <www-international@w3.org>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org> wrote:
> Raised by:
>     Richard Ishida
>
> Opened on:
>     2013-07-25
>
> Description:
>     7.2 Ethiopic Numeric Counter Style: ethiopic-numeric
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/css-counter-styles-3/#ethiopic-numeric-counter-style
>
>     - In the Nov 2002 version of the Lists module, step 5 did not have the
> text "that did not have its digits removed in the third step". Addition of
> that text causes the algorithm to fail to produce the simple example of 100.
> Removal of that text seems appropriate.

After I accept your correction of the third example, it looks like it
should actually say "that does not have the value zero".  Those groups
still don't generate group markers; it's just the ones with value 1
that still do, and that the spec was incorrectly cutting out.

This also reflects the instructions at http://www.geez.org/Numerals/.

>     - In step 3, "then remove the digit" should really say "then remove the
> digits" (ie both digits). Otherwise it takes a while for the reader to be
> sure they understand the actual meaning.

Done.

>     - Step 6 says "except the group with number 0". Since all such groups
> had their digits removed in step 3, I think it should say rather: "except
> the groups where the digits were removed in step 3"

Sorry, that's referring to the index, not the value.  Changed to
"except the group with index 0".

>     - I was able to replicate the example 78010092 by following the
> algorithm, but not able to replicate the example 780000001092 - i think the
> ethiopic given for the latter example is actually for the decimal number
> 780100000092.

Yeah, you're right.  Fixed.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 01:25:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 October 2013 01:25:18 UTC