Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-lists] Algorithm for initial counter value in reversed list should repeat the last increment instead of the 1st one (#6797)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `Initial Counter Value of reversed list and increments`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Accept proposal`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;fantasai> Topic: Initial Counter Value of reversed list and increments<br>
&lt;fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6797<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: Define reversed counters<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: either specify start explicitly or calculate automatically<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: I think algorithm doesn't make sents<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: if don't have any counter-set, some of the increments of the items for the counter<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: but first increment is counted twice, not once<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: and then sum is adjusted by -1 to get start value<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: counting the first increment twice, the reason might be otherwise last item will have value of ??<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: but in case of -1, we want the last item to get a value of 1<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: if all increments are the same<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: when they are different, I think we should actually repeat the last increment<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: I have some examples in the issue<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: if list with all increments -1<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: and take one item in middle of list to -2, this only affects preceding items<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: but if we change first item, this will affect the value of the last item<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: and modify all values in the list<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: which seems unexpected<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: another issue with counter-set, you have some increment there and the with counter-set<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: start without counter-set, and item with value 2<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: and then we assign counter-set: 2<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: this should have no effect<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: probably it's what the author expects<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: with current spec this can have an effect<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: in issue itself I proposed how to update the spec<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: Also variant of spec text taking into account resolution from 6738<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: where we decided to skip elements that are hidden<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: so only non-zero increments<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: Mats said it makes sense<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: and he already has an implementation<br>
&lt;Rossen_> q?<br>
&lt;fantasai> oriol: so suggest to take this change<br>
&lt;fantasai> Rossen_: sounds like a reasonable change, any others with an opposing opinion?<br>
&lt;fantasai> [silence]<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> +1 btw<br>
&lt;fantasai> Rossen_: objections?<br>
&lt;fantasai> RESOLVED: Accept proposal<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> (i assumed this was gonna be included in the issue we talked about during the f2f last week)<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6797#issuecomment-965557608 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2021 17:12:14 UTC