W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2014

Re: [css-counter-styles] About override loop

From: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 08:13:23 +1100
Message-ID: <CAMdq69_dh=2rAKtiM6xhZzOdDcaYnrzJdHHa0q9hq=NUFhyEew@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Saturday, February 22, 2014, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 4:12 AM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >> The current draft doesn't discuss what will happen if there is an
> >> override loop. However, it is obvious that all styles in an override
> >> loop should actually override 'decimal', like those override a
> >> nonexistent style. I just think it is better to mention such case in
> >> the spec.
> >
> > After doing some thinking, I propose that only the descriptor which is
> > unspecified in all styles in the cycle should fall to 'decimal'.
> >
> > For example, if there is three styles: A, B, and C:
> >
> > @counter-style A { system: override B; negative: A; }
> > @counter-style B { system: override C; prefix: B; }
> > @counter-style C { system: override A; suffix: C; }
> >
> > Then all three styles should use 'A' for 'negative', 'B' for 'prefix',
> > and 'C' for 'suffix', and other descriptors will inherent the value of
> > 'decimal'.
>
> Hm, I think that's more trouble than it's worth.  The cycle is an
> error in the first place; we *could* try to patch things up and do a
> minimal amount of failure, but I'd rather just make the entire thing
> fail in a more obvious fashion.
>

As it is an error, would you mind leave it for implementations to decide
how to deal with it?

 - Xidorn Quan
Received on Friday, 21 February 2014 21:13:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 February 2014 21:13:52 UTC