- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:05:24 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
- CC: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:54:31 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote: >> · ‘initial’ was not a keyword in CSS2.1. Was it a forward-looking >> extension? Is it still relevant? [...] >> · How normative is the CSS2.1 text? Does it actually mean that the >> value is invalid, or is it just discouraged? > > It uses 'must', so it's a normative requirement. Unfortunately, it > appears to be author conformance criteria, as there is nothing > specifying what implementations should do if authors *do* specify a > counter with that name. (The Lists module *does* specify this as > implementation conformance, by stating that it makes the > @counter-style invalid if you use one of the reserved names. In CSS21, 12.2 (The 'content' property) says: # <counter> # [...] The name must not be 'none', 'inherit' or 'initial'. Such # a name causes the declaration to be ignored. If you think this is not actually suitable in the light of what css3-lists says, please can you comment. Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Monday, 16 January 2012 22:06:00 UTC