- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 16:21:53 +0900
- To: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
- Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:13 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: >> > On Wednesday 2014-05-07 16:08 -0700, L. David Baron wrote: >> >> Instead, I would propose that the 'auto' value say: >> >> # If the system is override, this value has the same effect that >> >> # 'auto' would have for the overridden counter style. >> >> which seems more consistent with how the override system otherwise >> >> works. >> > >> > And I suppose the same proposal applies to 'range: auto', which has >> > the same issue (though without the loop detection complexity), and >> > which is defined in >> > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-counter-styles/#counter-style-range >> >> Both of these sound great to me. Changed. > > > There is one problem with the new rule: the behavior of 'range: auto' is not > defined for complex builtin styles, especially Chinese and Ethiopic styles > which have no system defined at all. I think it might make sense to specify > the behavior for those styles separately, but this makes the spec more > complex. > > For the reason, I propose that the behavior of 'auto' for 'range' should be > reverted to the previous version, so that we don't need to handle those > special cases. As this behavior is slightly different from that of other > descriptors, it might be helpful to have a note to describe. That's not a very strong reason. The "auto" range for the complex predefined ones is just their normal range. I can just define that. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 19 May 2014 07:22:41 UTC