[predefined-counter-styles] ‘fullwidth-’, ‘circled-’ and similar styles

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