- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 21:37:17 +0300 (EEST)
- To: www-style@w3.org
- cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Richard Ishida wrote: > Three of the four browsers tested (Firefox, Opera and Safari) supported > lower-greek rendering of list-style-type. Firefox and Opera support the > algorithm correctly, but Safari has a bug that occurs in some ranges > after the 576th list item. - - > I believe that this means lower-greek is ok for CSS 2.1. I think that what happens after the 576th item or so is immaterial when considering maturity for including the feature in CSS 2.1 final. As your document says, 'No information is given in CSS 2.1 about expectations for rendering other than this should be "Lowercase classical Greek".' What happens after omega is left undefined (implementation-dependent); this does not sound good, but it's quite the same problem as what happens after "Z". Generally, browser support to numbered lists with more than a few dozens of items is lousy, and authors should therefore avoid long lists, in practice. It's not an urgent matter to fix specifications and implementations in this respect. What matters is that lowercase Greek is needed both by the Greek and the international scientific community, which sometimes uses lowercase Greek letters for numbering in texts in different languages. Thus, there is a need, and there is a reasonable specification, and there are adequate implementations for the range from alpha to omega. There are no open questions when considerations are restricted this way, and the most important browser that does not implement the feature properly (IE) does not mess around with it but simply ignores it and uses common ("European") digits instead - which is something that authors using CSS should always be prepared to. However, the wording is unnecessarily obscure. What's "classical Greek" in this context? The real classical Greek - roughly, the Greek language spoken and written in the age of Perikles - had no lowercase letters. How would the numbering alpha, beta, ..., omega be different in modern Greek? The word "classical" is unnecessary and might just raise the question whether the sequence contains some ancient letters that were used for numbering in the old times. And when the Latin letters are specified as a, b, c, ..., z, it is odd that the Greek letter list is open-ended. I think it should explicitly terminate with omega, since the note "This specification does not define how alphabetic systems wrap at the end of the alphabet" would then apply to the Greek letters as well. -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Sunday, 5 August 2007 18:37:28 UTC