W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Armenian numbering: findings, recommendations and request to CSS WG

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:54:47 -0800
Message-Id: <p0624081dc5ba64bf3ca3@[]>
To: www-style@w3.org

I'm enjoying this discussion, and learning a lot, but I really wonder 
if we are obsessing about something, well, not exactly front-center 
to our mission.  As long as list-numbering methods are easily 
implemented, and well-described, and plausible, if we learn something 
later, we can introduce new methods.  (E.g. if we learn that 
reformed-armenian has a variation, we can introduce, if we need to, 
reformed-armenian).  I mean, where is Papua New Guinea Counting? 
(See <http://www.uog.ac.pg/glec/thesis/thesis.htm>).

(smile, now) Or do we *really* need to obsess, and have a 
cascading-list-number-method-description-language (CLNMDL), where you 
could say things like "this is like roman-lower except that we prefer 
the medieval iiii to the roman iv" :-), or write little pseudo-code 
pieces that create strings from integers for those methods :-), or 
have an embedded lisp interpreter emacs-style for the truly thorny 
cases...heh, isn't LISP the list-processing language...?
David Singer
Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 23:57:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:49:26 UTC