- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:43:34 -0800 (PST)
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Tab wrote: > > John's proposal, which I support, overarches the discussion about the > > scope of the algorithm. There has never been consensus on having > > section 11/12 in the spec. I have asked for an alternative solution to > > be presented: > > > > - Issue: should we replace the numbering systems described in chapter > > 11 with spelled-out lists that can be expressed without defining > > algorithms? Before deciding, spelled-out lists up to, say 100, should be > > added for comparison purposes. > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Nov/0449.html > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jun/0505.html > > > > I expect it to be present in the upcoming WD. > > That issue is already present in the ED, at the start of chapter 11. > I put it in there a few days ago. I think section 12, "Optional Extended Counter Styles" should be marked with a similar issue about whether it makes sense to spec out "optional" features such as these. I feel strongly that in the context of simple lists it doesn't make sense to be proposing this, as either a required or optional feature. At a minimum I think it should be pushed out to the next version of the module, the working group's time would be much better spent reviewing, refining and working out the fine details (along with tests!!!!) of @counter-style and the other proposals for simple lists. I think we need to keep in mind that neat ideas are wonderful but as a group, the CSS WG needs to focus on what's important first and leave what might possibly be interesting to a later time. Regards, John Daggett
Received on Friday, 25 November 2011 00:44:06 UTC