- From: Christoph Päper via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:40:38 +0000
- To: public-i18n-archive@w3.org
Crissov has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/predefined-counter-styles: == ‘fullwidth-’, ‘circled-’ and similar styles == - [Latin](http://w3c.github.io/predefined-counter-styles/#latin-styles) - [European Digits & Roman](http://w3c.github.io/predefined-counter-styles/#digit-styles) The simple styles that use roman letters or international digits inside an em-square have `fullwidth` in their name. * `fullwidth-lower-alpha` * `fullwidth-upper-alpha` * `fullwidth-decimal` * `fullwidth-lower-roman` * `fullwidth-upper-roman` Counter styles with precomposed circles, parentheses or dots without using `suffix:` do not have the `fullwidth-` prefix. * `circled-decimal` * `circled-lower-latin` * `circled-upper-latin` * `dotted-decimal` * `double-circled-decimal` * `filled-circled-decimal` * `parenthesized-decimal` As far as I know, Unicode inherited theses characters from legacy East Asian character sets/encodings primarily for round-trip compatibility with existing content. For authors who are not familiar with the history of character encodings, `fullwidth` is completely opaque and meaningless. That’s most of them, at least outside China, Japan and Korea. Yet, Europeans, Africans or Americans used only to the roman script might still feel tempted to use these counter styles. 1. Should they be specified at all? 2. Should we find a better prefix (or reuse `cjk-`) and apply it consistently? 3. Should they be in a common section? - … a new, separate one? - … part of [Han Ideographic (Chinese/Japanese/Korean)](http://w3c.github.io/predefined-counter-styles/#chinese-styles)? I believe the circled ones are okay, the rest should not be used, at least not in Western texts. Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/predefined-counter-styles/issues/6 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 14 July 2016 09:40:45 UTC