- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 17:20:59 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 5:00 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 04/25/2011 04:11 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Tab Atkins Jr.<jackalmage@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> 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. >> >> Upon review, yes, I could do the Japanese and Korean styles as simple >> additive styles if I limited them to the range [0,9999] (or >> [-9999,9999]). Chinese would still have to be specially defined, but >> it would be significantly simpler if also limited to that range. >> >> This seems like an adequate compromise - 10k should be enough for anyone, >> right? > > I suggest first publishing a draft with what you have now, and then cutting > it down later. Even if it doesn't wind up in CSS3 Lists, it's probably > useful > information for other people, and we might want to use those algorithms in a > spec at some point in the future. Of course you say that immediately *after* I finish most of the edits needed to make this happen. ^_^ (I can stash them for now, I just wanted to see how it would look with the changes.) ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2011 00:21:51 UTC