- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 15:14:37 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Friday 2007-11-02 21:19 -0400, fantasai wrote: > L. David Baron wrote: > >On Wednesday 2007-10-17 14:18 -0400, fantasai wrote: > >>I think at this point I'm leaning towards changing the 'page' counter to > >>behave like > >>the 'list-item' counter, and introducing an 'inhibit' value for > >>counter-increment that > >>will cause any implied counters to not be incremented. > > > >What's the use case for this? Why not just say that the implied > >counters always increment, and if authors want something else they > >should define their own counter that does what they want (or > >introduce -1 increments to undo the implied ones at the same > >points)? > > Actually, they'd want 0 increments, not -1 increments. No, I'm saying that the implied counter would increment no matter what the counter-increment property says, so an author who wants to undo the increment would use -1. (But the better way would still be to use a different counter.) -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Monday, 5 November 2007 03:26:07 UTC