Re: Counter-increment is not clear in CSS21 and CSS3

L. David Baron wrote:
> On Thursday 2009-03-12 22:21 +0100, François REMY wrote:
>> But, I just found another problem : The spec isn't clear about how the UA must 
>> treat 'none' as value for counter-increment. In fact, the prose NEVER talk about 
>> the effect of 'none'. So, the browser should treat none as a non-effect value, if it 
>> can't understand it otherly.
> 
> I agree that the spec should be clarified here.
> 
> I think IE8's behavior (not accepting 'none') is incorrect.  But I
> also think Gecko's behavior (it rejects 'none 1' but accepts 'foo 1
> none 1') is incorrect.
> 
> I think we probably want to say that either:
> 
>  (1) 'none' is a valid value on its own, but any value containing
>  'none' as a counter name is invalid, or
> 
>  (2) 'none' as a value on its own means that no counters are
>  incremented/reset, but use of 'none' in any other values implies
>  that there is a valid counter named 'none'.
> 
> Note that the same issue is present with 'inherit' and (in css3)
> 'initial'.

The CSSWG has accepted option 1. 'inherit' and 'initial' will be
handled the same way.

~fantasai

Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 17:53:26 UTC