Re: [css3-lists] CJK numbering algorithms

On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
> wrote:
> >> I've made the change and rearranged the sections accordingly.  Can
> >> everyone check out
> >> <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-lists/#cjk-counter-styles> and make sure
> >> I haven't done anything dumb?
> >
> > Thanks Tab, this looks great. Allow me to make two comments:
> >
> > * The fallback is used only for Korean, so I can't speak for them much,
> but I guess ''cjk-decimal'' might work better. Glyphs are closer, and the
> behavior in vertical writing is more similar.
>
> Ooh, good idea.  I'll switch it.
>

Not so fast :-).  It's not a good idea to use that fallback for
korean-hangul-* although it makes sense to use it for korean-hanja-*.

For korean-hangul-*, the following fallback should be used, instead. So, it
looks like we have to add this pre-defined counter as well.

@counter-style korean-decimal {
        type: numeric;
        glyphs: '\3007' '\C77C' '\C774' '\C0BC' '\C0AC' '\C624' '\C721'
'\CE60' '\D314' '\AD6C';
        /* '〇' '일' '이' '삼' '사' '오' '육' '칠' '팔' '구' */
}

For negative numbers in korean-hangul-*,  we can use '마이너스'   (U+b9c8 U+c774
U+b108 U+c2a4) followed by a space. Alternatively, we can use ASCII
hyphen-minus. Which is better? Well, it may not matter much because I expect
them to be used extremely rarely...

For negative numbers in korean-hanja-*,  I guess in the past, '負 U+8CA0' was
used. Do we want to use it for lists? I'm not so sure. Perhaps, it's still
better than ASCII '-' or its full-width counterpart.

Even if we restrict the range to 0 and positive integers instead of
extending them to negative numbers, I guess not many Koreans would complain.
 How many people would use them for negative numbers?

Jungshik


>
> > * Digit 0 for japanese-formal. It's not a big deal since it's used only
> for value "0", but I'd like this be U+3007 as well.
> >
> > OOXML/ODF spec says this style doesn't use digit 0, but a quick reverse
> engineering shows that they use U+3007 (or maybe they fallback to
> japanese-informal or cjk-decimal, the spec isn't clear about this.)
>
> K, I'll switch that one too.  I wasn't sure.
>
>
> > Also, you're right that lists don't use decimals, if authors put decimals
> in text, using different glyphs of digit 0 for lists and text doesn't look
> very good.
>
> Good point.
>
> ~TJ
>
>