- From: r12a via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 19:06:41 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I just read this thread, and here are some thoughts off the top of my head... It may indeed be useful to have some generic keywords, but i expect that the mapping from counter-styles to keywords is something the author should be able to do – rather than expecting a registry or depending on the browser implementers to create the mappings. That would mean creating a syntax that allows authors to map keywords to particular styles, themselves. This would also give authors the ability to specify their own custom styles, which i think will be a major advantage - not only for allowing alternate styling (such as for affixes), but allowing them to use completely new styles (there are certainly more than we have documented so far - in fact i'm about to add a bunch to the ready-made cs doc). Presumably the styles assigned to a keyword would need to be associated with BCP47 language tags to apply the right style to the content. That syntax could also allow authors to **define their own keywords**, rather than requiring them to squeeze their view of the world into some standardised set, which is likely to always be not quite what's needed, or biased towards Latin, or this or that. It may be helpful, however, to suggest some keywords, such as `numeric`, `alphabetic`, `additive` – these being types of enumeration. We may, though, need to allow a combination of keywords to define a set, such as "alphabetic uppercase". -- GitHub Notification of comment by r12a Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7959#issuecomment-1591830774 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 14 June 2023 19:06:43 UTC