- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 12:17:15 -0700
- To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Cc: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, www International <www-international@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org> wrote: > On 09/09/2014 08:48, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> In the current CSS Counter Styles draft,[1] we read that >>> >>> # These additional counter styles are not intended to be supported by >>> # user-agents by default >>> >>> (in reference to the styles listed in the i18n WG's document.[2]) >>> >>> However, test results[3] indicate that webkit and blink do actually >>> implement a number of these as built-in counter styles; in particular, >>> many >>> of the Indian script/language names (with the exception of 'tamil'), and >>> several more such as 'arabic-indic', 'persian', etc. >>> >>> A smaller number of the "additional" styles are also supported by >>> Firefox, >>> such as 'armenian', 'greek', and a number of CJK styles; and a handful >>> also >>> by IE. >>> >>> Should such styles be moved to the standard collection of predefined >>> styles >>> within the Counter Styles spec, with the expectation that all browsers >>> should support them? If so, we need to determine which ones to move. Or >>> should browsers refrain from implementing these "additional" styles as >>> built-ins, so that it's clear to authors that an explicit @counter-style >>> rule is needed in order to use them? ISTM the current situation is >>> unhelpful >>> from an interop point of view. >> >> >> Browsers generally shouldn't be implementing random things. However, >> they did support a larger set than the spec currently requires; the >> rule we used was just "what was specified in CSS2 and 2.1" to decide >> what to keep. >> >> I'm fine with adding more things to the spec if browsers already >> implement them, particularly if there are compat issues to deal with. >> Feel free to implement what you need, and I'll reflect it in the spec >> as necessary. > > > The i18n WG discussed this in a telecon, and was also concerned that it > might be confusing to content authors if browsers support counter-styles > that are meant to be optional. It would be important to send out a clear > message that you can't expect these built-in styles to be interoperable on > all platforms. > > On the other hand, if we suck those into the Counter Styles spec, that may > help, especially given that some are supported already by both Webkit and > Blink engines, and now Gecko too (although the choice seems a little > arbitrary). On the other other hand, IE still doesn't support the styles - I > don't know whether they plan to support the user-defined styling - if so, > one would hope that they will also support the additional built-in styles. > There is also the point that older browser versions for some time won't > support the styles it is suggested that we move into the spec, but then that > will be an issue for user-defined styles too. > > > To get some more specific information about what Jonathan was suggesting, I > ran the tests on the latest Firefox, Safari and Chrome nightlies, and here > is a summary of the current situation. Thank you so much! I was dreading having to run these tests myself, so I'm very happy that someone else did it for me. ^_^ > Counter-styles supported by Firefox, Chrome, Opera & Safari > (Those with * are also supported by IE, otherwise not.) These are > presumably the ones we are talking about adding to the spec. > > arabic-indic > persian > armenian* > lower-armenian > upper-armenian > bengali > devanagari > georgian* > lower-greek* > gujarati > gurmukhi > hebrew > cjk-earthly-branch > cjk-heavenly-stem > hiragana > katakana > hiragana-iroha > katakana-iroha > kannada > khmer > cambodian > lao > malayalam > mongolian > myanmar > oriya > telugu > thai > tibetan Yes, we should add all of these, since they're supported. > Additional counter-styles supported by Firefox, but not others > > cjk-decimal > korean-hangul-formal > tamil The first two are already in the spec. Tamil is a maybe. > Counter-styles supported by Chrome, Safari & Opera (with small > inconsistencies from spec) and not supported by Firefox. If Firefox was to > add these quickly, they may qualify for inclusion in the spec, however the > small divergences in the current implementations compared to the spec may > need some attention. For a list of divergences, see the notes at > http://www.w3.org/International/tests/repository/predefined-counter-styles/results-predefined-counter-styles#ethiopic > > afar > oromo > sidama > tigre Like tamil, these are maybes. We can possibly just drop them, or else FF can implement them and I can pull them into the spec. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 25 September 2014 19:18:13 UTC