W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2011

Re: [css3-lists] Publish a new WD?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 18:08:09 -0600
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDA3F0Px3t1me0zrnBAn923L+9xouruf7Qk_XP42eU3z8g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote:
> Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.:
>  > > - Issue: Do we need predefined lists beyond what CSS2 defines? For example,
>  > > do we need 'simple-upper-roman', 'fullwidth-decimal', 'octal',
>  > > 'upper-hexadecimal'? Do the people who need octal numbering (there
>  > > may be some) really trust CSS to get numbering correct?
>  >
>  > This is already covered by an issue.  (I'll note, though, that 'octal'
>  > isn't a very good style to question the correctness of, given that
>  > it's completely trivial.
> It's trivial to express, but is there a strong use case? We don't want
> to add stuff only because it's easy. When people use octal numbering,
> I believe it's part of the content. That is, when people use octal,
> it's vital for the meaning of the document that the numbering is
> displayed in octal. Thus, we're beyond styling.
> But maybe I'm wrong. A few samples in the wild would be helpful to see.

I'm not opposed to removing some styles.  I was just opposed to
removing the entire section because of a few styles.  ^_^

>  > Better would be some of the non-English
>  > alphabetic styles, where I'm counting on information from other people
>  > and my own transcription ability to get this right.)
> I'm concerned about us not getting enough review.

Sure.  If there is a concern that this will hold up Lists, or that in
an effort to *not* hold up Lists we'll push through without enough
review of the predefined styles, perhaps we could split them out into
a separate spec?  Define @counter-style in the Lists spec, but define
the predefined styles in another.  Then we won't have to worry about
the two interfering with each other's progress in either direction.

>  > >  - Issue: should we require real-world examples of all list style
>  > >   types described in this specification?
>  >
>  > Most of the styles are stated to have real-world usage in the various
>  > emails or documents that I and Hixie extracted the original styles
>  > from.  I can produce those original emails, but it would be a *lot* of
>  > work to go through and re-justify all of them.  I'm not particularly
>  > interested in doing so.
> Someone should speak up for predefined styles and provide samples in
> the wild. It doesn't have to be you; it would be better it the people
> who use these styles would speak up.

As I said, I can provide emails that requested some of the styles, but
not all of them - Hixie sent me all the collected feedback that he'd
obtained since he'd stopped working on the spec.

>  > > - Issue: If we decide that we need more predefined list types, what
>  > >  criteria should be used and how should that criteria be expressed
>  > >  in the specification? Does presence in Unicode warrant placement?
>  > >  Do we need lists for Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and other languages
>  > >  written in the Latin scripts. If not, why not?
>  >
>  > The (unstated) criteria that I used was if it's a living language and
>  > the usage was stated to be reasonably popular.  Do you want something
>  > in the spec about this?
> Yes. If we decide to add predefined styles we should tell people how
> they were selected, and what procedures they need to follow to add even
> more.


>  > > - Issue: Should 'footnotes' be 'footnote' instead? (like CSS does in
>  > > "italic" and other places)
>  >
>  > Perhaps.  Do you have a strong opinion either way?  I don't.  If you
>  > make a decision here, we don't need an issue over it.
> I'd like to see it changed, as suggested in the past:
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jun/0005.html

Okay, I'll make the change once I get back to work next week.

>  > >  - 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.
>  >
>  > Up to 100 isn't really acceptable.  While *most* lists are under 100,
>  > as they're hand-coded, a significant fraction of the remaining
>  > use-cases can get very large, easily going into the thousands.
> If so, they can add their own definitions, no?
> Could you point to some real-world use cases that are up in the
> thousands? I have no doubt there are some, but it ould be helpful to
> see what they contain.

In general, or specifically for this type of list?

>  > >  - Issue: could W3C host a style sheet with the "predefined" styles in
>  > >   it? It's easier to correct errors in this style sheet than it is to
>  > >   change/update deployed browsers.
>  >
>  > Given the pain caused by software actually following doctype urls that
>  > pointed to the w3c, I doubt this would fly (and software is *supposed*
>  > to follow <link rel=stylesheet> urls!).  ^_^
> Yes, I meant that W3C should host the document and browsers should
> fetch it. This way, errors can easily be fixed. W3C is capable of
> hosting style sheets; the core styles from 1998 are still available:
>  http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/Core/

No browser, I think, would fetch a UA stylesheet from the W3C (or any
website).  That's far too fragile.  They'd push updates in the usual
way, and include the stylesheet in their own bundled resources.

Received on Saturday, 26 November 2011 00:08:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:07 UTC