Re: [css3-lists] remove "Complex Counter Styles" and "Optional Extended Counter Styles" sections

On 11/24/2011 04:43 PM, John Daggett wrote:
>
> 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.

Whether to have section 12 and whether to mark it optional was already
discussed and resolved in May.

    - RESOLVED: Define cjk longhand list numbering up to 100,000
                with fallback to cjk-decimal beyond, allow UAs to
                implement longhand beyond that limit, put definition
                for that in informative appendix.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011May/0234.html

> 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.

What is the point of pushing it out to the next level if the spec work
is already done and the feature is marked at-risk?

~fantasai