- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 10:47:40 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Ernest Cline <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
- Cc: W3C CSS List <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Ernest Cline wrote:
>
> The net result is 49 fewer list styles and 76 fewer keywords,
> plus an additional 5 styles and keywords that could be dropped
> if the styles that are part of CSS 2 but not CSS 2.1 are dropped.
> In addition there would be no need for additional keywords
> for styles that meet the definition of one of these four values.
No, the net result is you are moving the burden of complexity from the UA
implementors (a small group) to the authors (potentially hundreds of
millions of people).
As an author, I know that I most definitely prefer writing:
ol { list-style: lower-alpha; }
...than:
ol { list-style: repeating "abcdefghijklmnpqrstuvwxyz" "."; }
...not least of which because the first is correct, and the second is
missing an "o", an error that I would almost certainly have missed.
The implementation burden of the 49 or so repeating list styles is very
small. It's a table, the contents of which are given by the spec. The
usage burden of giving the list each time is huge in comparison.
--
Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL
U+1047E /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 13 March 2004 05:47:44 UTC