- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:59:32 +0100
- To: W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, "CJK discussion (public-i18n-cjk@w3.org)" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
[resending because my mail client is too complicated and I dropped www-style] Fwiw, I have some tests results for all the major browsers at http://www.w3.org/International/tests/html-css/list-style-type/results-list-style-type#alphabetic Afaict, from the notes I made, the tests fail because of differences in the initial sequence rather than because of the way of handling higher numbers - ie. they all seem to agree on approach A. RI Richard Ishida Internationalization Activity Lead W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) http://www.w3.org/International/ http://rishida.net/ On 25/09/2012 18:31, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu > <kanghaol@oupeng.com> wrote: >> (12/09/25 5:42), fantasai wrote: >>> Tab is putting formal definitions for all the CSS2.0 list >>> styles into the CSS3 Counter Styles module. We need to know >>> what happens at the end of the list. >> >> I have no opinion but here's some data sharing. >> >>> The possibilities we >>> can think of are: >>> >>> A. あ、い、う、...、ああ、あい、あう >> >> Firefox, WebKit >> >>> B. あ、い、う、...、ああ、いい、うう >> >> Keynote >> >>> C. あ、い、う、...、あ、い、う >> >> TextEdit, OpenOffice > > Thanks, Kenny and Koji! > > Given that two browsers currently do A, and I find A or B better in > general than C (unique markers for each element), I'll stick with A > despite the word processor legacy. > > ~TJ > >
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 11:00:01 UTC