- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:44:28 +0100
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>
Daniel Glazman 2009-02-12 15.44: > Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > >> So the time seems to be right. Of course, as long as one *wants* to >> extend CSS with support for more lists. > > Don't tell _me_ that. This module exists because I originally pushed > for multiple numbering systems' support in CSS and wrote this document: > > http://www.glazman.org/specs/numberings.htm > > very long ago. (added CC to www-international) OK - sorry. Thanks for updating me about the history. So we are on the same side w.r.t. getting more support in this area. Excellent! It seems to me, however, when I look at that page of yours, that you have - for the non-Western scripts - been focusing not on alphabets used for alphabetisized enumeration (such as upper-alpha), but rather on traditional ways to use letters as numbers (such as "upper-roman"). So may be this is part of the background for why we have ended up with Georgian and Armenian the way it is - not too useful. If we take this issue from the point of view of what you largely ignored in that page, namely alphabetical listings, then we should, very fast, be able to agree that there have been several alphabetical reforms over the centuries. Not least have there been some such reforms in the USSR - and also some after USSR. Then, on top of that, there have been -and continues to be- different conventons and methods for using those alphabets for several kinds of lists. Both Russia, Ukraine and also CIS (the former USSR states) have agreed upon ways to use their alphabets in lists - without this being reflected anywhere in e.g. W3 standards. Hence, to me, is seems necessary to be able to discern between different kinds list variants, even if (like for language tagging), it might be possible to use more general list-style type names on daily basis. (It is usually enough to tag an English text with the "en" tag, even if we may also tag it as "en-us" or "en-UK" etc.) In the case of alphabetal lists, if - for instance - there were some list format called "upper-cyrillic", which defaulted to be equal to "upper-russian", then this list-format would be possible to use for most, if not all Cyrillic alphabets *up until* the 5th Cyrillic letter (in those Cyrillic alphabets I have checked). And as most lists are pretty short (how many list aren't made up of just 3 points - a, b, c?), this would be very useful. Speaking about Cyrillic alphabets, I have documented slavic (Russian, Ukrainian, Belarussian, Bulgarian and Serbian) Cyrillic alphabetic enumeratin on this page: http://www.malform.no/cyrl/ And (most of) what is documentated on that page has allready been implemented in Prince XML. Of the cyrillic formats set up on that page above, only the Serbian format is strictly alphabetic. All the other Cyrillic alphabetic list formats of that page omits characters, for different reasons that I shall not bother you with in this round. Suffice to say it that the examples found in the comment to the CSS list module published at www.ethiopic.org [1] is wrong, as it lists e.g. the full Cyrillic Alphabets, rather than the letters used for alphabetical listing. In my own page (see above), I conferred LaTeX implementations and also conferred with some of those responsible for those implementations. Thus it is more based on "facts in the wild" rather than documented decisions by Language Concils or similar. It would be interesting to know if e.g. Armenian and Georgian latex implementatios of alphabetic lists exist ... [1] http://www.ethiopic.org/w3c/css/WD-css3-lists-20020220-comments.html#unicode -- leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 17:45:14 UTC