W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > August 2019

[csswg-drafts] [css-lists] Serialization of counter-increment/set/reset (#4216)

From: Eric Willigers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 05:03:40 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issues.opened-482106777-1566191018-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
ewilligers has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts:

== [css-lists] Serialization of counter-increment/set/reset ==
As discussed [recently](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3687#issuecomment-516981741), `counter-reset` etc. can have repeated counter names.

For set/[reset](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-lists-3/#counter-reset), only the last value for each name is relevant. For [increment](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-lists-3/#increment-set), only the total value for each name is relevant.
 
For serialization of specified and computed values, should implementations preserve repetitions? 

For distinct names, should order be preserved, or should we use lexicographic order, or is order arbitrary?

Suppose we have
`counter-reset: foo 1 bar 2 foo 3 bar 4;`

Should `getComputedStyle().counterReset` return `"foo 1 bar 2 foo 3 bar 4"` or `"foo 1 foo 3 bar 2 bar 4"` or `"bar 2 bar 4 foo 1 foo 3"` or `"foo 3 bar 4"` or `"bar 4 foo 3"`, or are either of the last two OK (e.g. if an implementation uses hash tables) ?


Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4216 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 19 August 2019 05:03:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 19 October 2021 01:31:13 UTC