Re: [css3-lists] of lists and castles

On Apr 25, 2011, at 17:00 , fantasai 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.


You could set an explicit conformance limit, and note in the algorithm wrinkles and steps 'for those wanting extra credit'.  It's not harmful to document a robust and general algorithm, after all, just put "Note; this part is only needed for numbers >X, and X>9999 (the conformance limit)"

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2011 00:26:48 UTC