- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:03:03 -0600
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 5:54 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > > 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. > > Hey, don't make us bring up DSSSL. ^_^ ~TJ
Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 00:03:38 UTC