- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:42:40 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote: > > [Tab Atkins:] >> I generally agree. Supporting up to the trillions is just a bit of >> completionism, really; once you have the algorithm to do up to 10k or so, >> the rest is basically no effort. > > Not so. It has to be implemented,verified, testcases will have to be > submitted to cover the feature...'Completionism' without a use-case is > feature creep by another name. > > >> It's not like browsers will support >> numbering up that high, anyway > > Why specify something that you don't expect browsers to support 'anyway'? Okay, then. I think the styles are valuable to support, given that they are used in real life. Should we perhaps just limit the styles to the range 0-9999? That would cut out a decent chunk of complexity (as it would limit them to a single "group") and still support the *vast* majority of use-cases. I'd have to review, but I think this would also allow me to define several of them using the 'additive' type. A few would still have to be explicitly defined (the Chinese ones, in particular, due to the zero-collapsing rule they have), but it would be less than the current set. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 25 April 2011 16:43:27 UTC