W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > May 2021

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-lists] Omitted start value of reversed list isn't calculated right (#6233)

From: Simon Pieters via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 21:04:23 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-845475658-1621544660-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The proposed fix in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/6297 has the same result as what browsers do now for `<ol reversed>` with `<li value>`.

I agree it seems likely to be rarely used, but we usually dig up data to confirm. However it's not clear to me why it's better to stop at the first element with `counter-set`. It seems kinda arbitrary to me? A non-reversed list doesn't change its start value when one of the list items use a `value` attribute. I would expect a reversed list to have the same start and end values, just reversed.

GitHub Notification of comment by zcorpan
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6233#issuecomment-845475658 using your GitHub account

Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2021 21:04:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:33 UTC