- From: Sam Sneddon via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 15:27:50 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
These from [2012](https://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/advanced_search?keywords=%22counter+styles%22&hdr-1-name=subject&hdr-1-query=minutes&hdr-2-name=from&hdr-2-query=&hdr-3-name=message-id&hdr-3-query=&period_month=&period_year=2012&index-grp=Public__FULL&index-type=t&type-index=www-style&resultsperpage=20&sortby=date) and [2011](https://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/advanced_search?keywords=%22counter+styles%22&hdr-1-name=subject&hdr-1-query=minutes&hdr-2-name=from&hdr-2-query=&hdr-3-name=message-id&hdr-3-query=&period_month=&period_year=2011&index-grp=Public__FULL&index-type=t&type-index=www-style&resultsperpage=20&sortby=date) hopefully cover relevant resolutions. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Nov/0814.html seems to contain the original resolution to split Counter Styles out of Lists, so Lists could progress to CR separately (which it still hasn't): > RESOLVED: split predefined counter styles into a separate spec https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Aug/0899.html seems to cover dropping many of them from Counter Styles: > RESOLVED: Move @counter-style rule and symbols() function to the counter styles spec. Retain in that spec the 2.0, 2.1 and the six way cjk ideographic split (which is marked at-risk). Move rest of counter styles to registry on W3C wiki. It's less clear here in the minutes what the motivation here? It sounds like the WG was just unclear how many of the styles were correct; does the I18N IG have that confidence in their Note? -- GitHub Notification of comment by gsnedders Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8636#issuecomment-1481401118 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 23 March 2023 15:27:52 UTC