W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2013

Re: [css-counter-styles] implementation of complex cjk counter styles

From: Bobby Tung <bobbytung@wanderer.tw>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:17:51 +0800
Message-Id: <528FDA89-E9C3-4867-BCE4-571A93E27515@wanderer.tw>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
I'll forward this to HTML 5 IG. To understand if any difference in zh-TW and zh-CN. Any feedback will forward here.

WANDERER Bobby Tung
Sent from my iPhone 5.

> Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>  2013/11/11 U8:09 gDG
> 
> I'm forwarding information from Bobby; looks like it matches to Xidorn's
> feedback for Chinese.
> 
> /koji
> 
> 
> From: ֿ <bobbytung@wanderer.tw>
> Date: Monday, November 11, 2013 3:55 PM
> To: "Ishii, Koji a | Koji | BLD" <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
> Subject: Re: [css-counter-styles] Suggested changes to Chinese and Korean
> informal styles
> 
> 
> Can I count informal styles as verbal expression?
> 
> here is the list. please help me to forward. I've read #CSS discussion.
> 
> 1 
> @
> 
> 10
> Q
> (end zero is skipped)
> 
> 11
> Q|@
> 
> 100
> @
> (end two zero is skipped)
> 
> 101
> @|s|@
> 
> 110
> @|@
> (end zero is skipped,@ is instead of Q)
> 
> 111
> @|@Q|@
> 
> 1000
> @d
> (end three zero is skipped)
> 
> 1001
> @d|s|@
> (two zero is combined as one zero)
> 
> 1010
> @d|s|@Q|
> (end zero is skipped)
> 
> 1011
> @d|s|@Q|@
> 
> 1100
> @d|@
> (end two zero is skipped, @ is instead of @)
> 
> 1101
> @d|@|s|@
> 
> 1110
> @d|@|@Q
> (end zero is skipped)
> 
> 1111
> @d|@|@Q|@
> 
> 10000
> @U
> (end four zero is skipped)
> 
> 
> 10001
> @U|s|@
> (Three zero is combined)
> 
> 10010
> @U|s|@Q|
> (two zero is combined, final end is skipped)
> 
> 10011
> @U|s|@Q|@
> (two zero is combined)
> 
> 10100
> @U|s|@
> (end two zero is skipped)
> 
> 
> 10101
> @U|s|@|s|@
> 
> 10110
> @U|s|@|@Q
> (end zero is skipped)
> 
> 10111
> @U|s|@|@Q|@
> 
> 11000
> @U|@
> (end three zero is skipped, @ is instead of @d)
> 
> 
> 11001
> @U|@d|s|@
> (two zero is combined)
> 
> 
> 11100
> @U|@d|@
> (end two zero is skipped, @ is instead of @)
> 
> 
> 11101
> @U|@d|@|s|@
> 
> 11110
> @U|@d|@|@Q|
> (end zero is skipped, @ is instead of @Q)
> 
> 
> 11111
> @U|@d|@|@Q|@
> 
> 
> Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>  2013/11/11 U3:17 gDG
> 
> 
> Bobby, we need Chinese experts on issue #11 on this:
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-counter-styles/issues-lc-20130718.html#issue-11
> 
> Do you have any insights?
> 
> /koji
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/7/13 11:13 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I just submitted an implementation of longhand East Asian counter
>>> styles for
>>> Firefox. You can find it at
>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=934072 .
>>> 
>>> As described in comment 8 in the page mentioned above, this impl
>>> generates a
>>> slightly different result with the current draft: for 11,111, it
>>> generates
>>> "@EdʤQ@" in japanese-informal and "U dʤQ@" in korean-hanja-informal;
>>> and it
>>> generates "@dE" for 10,000,000 in japanese-informal. These
>>> modifications are
>>> based on the discussion in this mailing list and replies from some of my
>>> native friends, and I also referred to the result of Google Translate.
>> 
>> Can you please describe what these changes are in terms of the
>> algorithms in the spec?
> 
> And here's more of Xidorn's feedback, on the Chinese informal styles:
> 
>> Section 7.2.1, 5. Drop ones, the first term should be changed from
>> 
>>> For the Chinese informal styles, for any group with a value between ten
>>> and nineteen,
>>> remove the tens digit (leave the digit marker).
>> 
>> to
>> 
>>> For the Chinese informal styles, for any group **other than the ones
>>> group** with a
>>> value between ten and nineteen, remove the tens digit (leave the digit
>>> marker).
>> 
>> For example, for number 10,011, the current term generates "@EsQ@" and
>> the new term generates "@Es@Q@" which is more preferable. The number
>> of result Google search can prove: 8 results for "@EsQ@", but about
>> 741,000 results for "@Es@Q@".
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> ~TJ
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 11 November 2013 12:18:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:16 UTC