- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 11:16:48 -0800
- To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org> wrote: > Dear CSS WG, > > I have a Christmas present for you: A set of tests for the > internationalization related bits of the predefined counter styles in CSS > Lists and Counters Module Level 3 spec, with results for support on the > major desktop browsers, running under the new W3C Test Framework. > > Start here: > http://www.w3.org/International/tests/html-css/list-style-type/results-list-style-type > > and follow the links to see the tests/results within the test framework. Awesome, Richard! Thanks for this! Note that the predefined counter styles have moved into a separate document at <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-counter-styles/>, so some of your references may need to be updated. The anchors are the same as when they were listed in Lists 3. Now, a few questions based on these results. (If you can't answer them, that's fine, but I suspect you're well-placed to get answers to them.) 1. The current impls for hiragana and katakana "include ゐ and ゑ before を and ん at the end of the basic sequence". Which is correct - the implementations or the spec? 2. Similar question for hiragana-iroha and katakana-iroha, as the spec "includes a ん at the end that is not in the implementations". Which behavior is correct? 3. Similar question for afar, oromo, sidama, and tigre. 4. For Armenian, I've currently limited its range to 1-9999 because of Issue 3, where I'm not certain whether the circumflex multiplies a digit by 1k or 10k. If I can get a definitive answer to that, I can correct the Armenian styles to use a larger range. 5. For Hebrew, I explicitly changed the algorithm from what was stated in the old 2003 draft, based on feedback from native Hebrew speakers, to better match the numbering pattern typically used in lists (which is different from what is used for other types of numbers, apparently). It is unsurprising that implementations have not yet updated their algorithms. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 27 December 2011 19:17:44 UTC