RE: [css3-lists] CJK numbering algorithms

>>> * The fallback is used only for Korean, so I can't speak
>>> for them much, but I guess ''cjk-decimal'' might work better.
>>> Glyphs are closer, and the behavior in vertical writing is more
>>> similar.
>>
>> Ooh, good idea.  I'll switch it.
>
> Not so fast :-).  It's not a good idea to use that fallback for
> korean-hangul-* although it makes sense to use it for korean-hanja-*. 

It sounds like this is yet another example where CJ and K are different. Maybe we should define fallback per counter style, rather than CJK as a group? I noticed that the fallback can be used for large numbers as well.

> For korean-hangul-*, the following fallback should be used, instead.
> So, it looks like we have to add this pre-defined counter as well.
>
> @counter-style korean-decimal {
>        type: numeric;
>        glyphs: '\3007' '\C77C' '\C774' '\C0BC' '\C0AC' '\C624' '\C721' '\CE60' '\D314' '\AD6C';
>        /* '〇' '일' '이' '삼' '사' '오' '육' '칠' '팔' '구' */
> }

Is this "korean-decimal" or "korean-hangul-decimal"?

> Even if we restrict the range to 0 and positive integers instead of
> extending them to negative numbers, I guess not many Koreans
> would complain.  How many people would use them for negative
> numbers?

Actually, the same discussion applies to Japanese, and I guess to Chinese as well.

I agree that not many people would complain. The same applies to Japanese. But if some may complain, why shouldn't we spend efforts to make everyone happy? If one would ever tried to use this and saw:
  ..., -3, -2, -1, 〇, 일, 이, 삼, ...
I guess this looks strange to you, as strange as "..., -3, -2, -1, 〇, 壱, 弐, 参, ..." looks to me.

I hope you spend some time to think about this and come up with the "least broken answer." If the above example is the "least broken answer" for you, that is fine.


Regards,
Koji

Received on Saturday, 23 April 2011 08:08:33 UTC