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

>  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.

@fantasai and I *don't* expect that. ^_^

Here's an example:

```
<ol reversed>
 <li>??
 <li value=20>20
 <li>??
 <li value=10>10
 <li>??
</ol>
```

I think it's pretty clear that the first ?? should be 21, so it can "count down" to 20. I believe you're with me on that.

But for the next two, we think they should be 19 and 9, not 11 and 1. We believe it's a stronger expectation for a reversed list's items, in the absence of any other fiddling, to just count down from the preceding item (just like normal lists count up), versus the expectation for a reversed list to be numbered identically to a normal list with reversed child order.

We also think it's important for `<ol start=N>` to have the same effect as `<li value=N>` on the first item, as in:

```
<ol reversed start=10>
 <li>10
 <li>9
</ol>

<ol reversed>
 <li value=10>10
 <li>9
</ol>
```

That *definitely* seems like a stronger expectation, at least to us.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6233#issuecomment-845486120 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 21:22:07 UTC