- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:36:22 +0000 (UTC)
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Cc: W3C CSS List <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: >> >> The implementation burden of 149 repeating list styles is very small too. > > It depends. And they surely make the specification more voluminous, > especially if you actually define the meanings (instead of leaving it to > implementations, which would be virtually guaranteed to be > incompatible). Compared to the burden it would place on authors instead, it's a small burden. It doesn't really depend on much. >>> There are a good number such as "lower-swedish" and "upper-swedish" >> >> I have it on good authority that those are the same as lower-alpha >> (apparently Swedes don't use their three "additional" letters in >> alphabetic numbering contexts). > > Have you checked this from the applicable national institutions > officially, and are you sure they understood the question correctly? I have corresponded with people who claim to have done so, yes. (I don't have the time to follow up these issues with each country's national institutions myself, so I really on expert advice.) If you would like to contact the relevant people to verify this matter, I would be very grateful. > As far as I know, there is no standard for this, in Sweden or in > Finland, so assuming that the nationally standardized alphabet and > alphabetic order will always be ignored is rather risky, and most > probably just wrong. This isn't just an assumption, as I said. It is simply following i18n expert advice. >> I was under the impression that the Danish and the Finnish also only >> used the 26 letters of lower-alpha. Is this not true? > > On similar grounds, no. Besides, for Finnish, the national standard on > alphabetic order gives two options: letter "w" can be regarded as a > variant "v" (hence, IMHO, to be skipped in alphabetic numbering), or > treated as a letter of its own, as in English. If you can provide me with an exact official algorithm, I would be happy to add it to the list. >> So far nobody has given me any hard information on the existence of an >> alphabetic Welsh numbering system. > > Is there hard information on the existence of _well-defined_ alphabetic > numbering systems in general? Certainly. The use of the English alphabet, wrapping from "Z" to "AA", is well established, and, in the CSS3 Lists draft, well-defined. > The mere fact that current CSS specifications leave it open what happens > after 'Z' or 'z' should be alarming. CSS3 defines these matters in detail. > If such a simple issue cannot be resolved It _is_ resolved. What on earth makes you think it cannot be resolved? > how would it be possible to find correct answers to questions involving > cultural dependencies and varying practices? It m (You didn't finish your sentence.) > I would say that a generic system would be _more_ valuable in many ways, > including definiteness. As I explained before, pushing the burden of implementation onto the author is not good design. > Actually list-style-character would, en passant, also solve the problem of > specifying "list bullets" that comply with several national standards, > which is not possible by current CSS specifications. E.g., > ul { list-style-character: "\u2013"; } This will be possible with ::marker as defined in the current draft. -- Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL U+1047E /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 15 March 2004 05:36:23 UTC