- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:41:04 -0700
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote: > Le 26/03/2013 18:30, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit : >> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> >> wrote: >>> In WeasyPrint and PrinceXML, the disc is rendered as a U+2022 BULLET >>> character, which in Ahem is also a big square. This is what should happen >>> in >>> my understanding of the Lists 3 and Counter Style drafts. Browsers, >>> however, >>> still show a disc. >>> >>> So, should css-counter-styles-3 say something about the font used to >>> render >>> symbolic counter styles such as 'disc'? >> >> >> No, the exact rendering of the predefined symbolic styles is >> explicitly left undefined, with browsers being given a choice of using >> a particular character (with several suggestions given, but nothing >> required), or a browser-generated image that looks similar to the >> intended rendering. Note the paragraph immediately following the >> stylesheet in the predefined symbolic section. >> >> So, everyone's perfectly compliant so far. > > > We found out about this through some CSS 2.1 tests such as this one: > > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/list-style-position-019.htm > > which says "There must be 3 thick horizontal black bars below, each preceded > by a bright green bullet (filled-in circle)." WeasyPrint renders squares > (Ahem glyphs) instead of bullets, and so technically fails the test. > > Is this an issue with the test? Yes, since 2.1 didn't define the appearance of the symbolic types *at all*. Seriously, here's the text defining those keywords: "Glyphs are specified with disc, circle, and square. Their exact rendering depends on the user agent.". Counter Styles tightens that up a bit, but probably due to the historical undefinedness, couldn't do much more without making most of the current browsers non-compliant. That didn't seem particularly useful, since they're all doing reasonable things today. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:41:54 UTC