- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:13:37 -0800
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote: > Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.: > > > > - 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. > > Could you also add spelled-out lists for comparison purposes? Is this actually needed? It would take a non-trivial amount of work to do, and you can just imagine one of the existing non-repeating styles with a 100-long glyphs descriptor. It doesn't have a very surprising experience, and the visual appearance of the rule isn't a very important detail. Or actually, for a good example of what a verbose @counter-style looks like, check out some of the additive styles like georgian or hebrew. (Though, if we *did* decide that we didn't care about values past 100 or so, I'm pretty sure I could express them as an additive style in a much shorter way than explicitly listing values in a non-repeating style.) ~TJ
Received on Friday, 25 November 2011 03:14:27 UTC