- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:49:47 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 21/02/13 09:15, Håkon Wium Lie wrote: > Also sprach Daniel Glazman: > > > Not sure the page and page counters' definition in section 7.1 > > should not belong to the GCPM spec. > > Double negatives makes parsing harder. But I do not think we should > move page counters to GCPM, if that's what you are proposing. It seems > we have intereoperability in three shipping implementations: > > http://people.opera.com/howcome/2013/tests/css3-page/page-counters.html > http://people.opera.com/howcome/2013/tests/css3-page/page-counters-antennahouse.pdf > http://people.opera.com/howcome/2013/tests/css3-page/page-counters-prince.pdf > http://people.opera.com/howcome/2013/tests/css3-page/page-counters-weasyprint.pdf It's not a question of "this is implemented and interoperable" but a question of "does it belong to that spec given its title and introduction"?". This is about a counter and the way to generate content from it. I can live with the current position in css3-page, but I think we ask from other specs in the WG a greater homogeneity that is not met here. Hence my proposal to move it to GCPM. I guess it will be for L4. </Daniel>
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2013 08:50:17 UTC