- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:53:56 -0800
- To: Jack Smiley <zxcv_890@hotmail.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Jack Smiley <zxcv_890@hotmail.com> wrote: > Why was the decision made to increment a counter before it's used? Doesn't > it then make it more confusing to have to set the counter to one less than > the desired starting number? Then again, you guys are very smart, so I'm > guessing there's probably a good reason... Because if you don't, then you can't vary the amount you're incrementing by according to the element - you'd have to *predict* what the next element wants to increment by in whatever the previous element that touches that counter is. It also just generally seems more intuitive that counter-increment on an element affects the value of the counter *on that element*. It does lead to the slightly inconvenient fact that you need to set counter-reset to one less than your desired first value, as you note, but you have to choose whether to make -increment confusing, or -reset. My previous paragraph makes it clearer why -increment won. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2012 20:54:52 UTC