- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:54:47 -0800
- 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