- From: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 18:25:18 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 17:22:01 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com> >> Do you have a proposal of a literal variant that would play nicer with >> existing things? > > Unfortunately, no. However, in Lists I decided I didn't really need > ranges in the first place, as the people who would be typing a > @counter-style rule using some set of non-latin characters would > probably have their keyboard set up to make it easy to just type out > the full alphabet. It takes about 5 seconds to type out the latin > alphabet, and I assume other languages are similar. This reasoning > probably applies here as well. (Fonts needs the ranges, because > they're often huge and span alphabets.) This isn't very important, as what can be expressed is the same. Still, it seems to me that "ა","ჵ" or "ა":"ჵ" or "ა"~"ჵ" is more readable and less error prone than either U+10D0-10F05 or "აბგდევზჱთიკლმნჲოპჟრსტჳუფქღყშჩცძწჭხჴჯჰჵ". It works even if you're not looking at a language you're not used to. Quickly, tell me which of the 3 lines below has a mistake: "a"~"z" "abcdefghjiklmnopqrstuwvxyz" U+41-5B If we can find a nice syntax, I'd like to use it. If we can't, I guess having explicit listing and <urange>s is good enough, and we could even drop <urange>s as you say if they turn out not to be that useful. I'd rather keep them at first though, at least while we're experimenting.
Received on Monday, 5 December 2011 17:25:54 UTC