- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:04:38 +0000
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, www International <www-international@w3.org>
The i18n WG believes that this issue has now been satifactorily addressed and has closed the issue on our tracker system. Thank you. RI On 10/02/2014 23:10, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org> wrote: >> I was making the necessary changes to my tests and the Predefined Counter >> Styles WD when it occurred to me that we are making a mistake here to make >> the 'longer-hebrew' style described below an alternative. >> >> Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera all implement hebrew numbering already per >> the longer-hebrew style. IE and old-Opera don't implement hebrew numbering >> at all. >> >> Run the test here: >> http://www.w3.org/International/tests/repository/run?manifest=predefined-counter-styles&test=list-style-type-116a >> >> See the results here: >> http://www.w3.org/International/tests/repository/predefined-counter-styles/results/results-predefined-counter-styles#hebrew >> >> So why not make the definition of hebrew in the spec be the definition >> provided for longer-hebrew below, and possibly keep the other hanging around >> as the alternative? >> >> If we don't, I doubt that hebrew will get through CR. If we do, it will sail >> through, and if people really want the verbose version that only goes up to >> 2000, they can use a definition in the Predefined Counter Styles doc (though >> I'm not sure what I'd call it). > > The implementation information is convincing. I've switched the > spec's definition of "hebrew" over to the longer form, and updated DoC > issue #1 from Rejected to Accepted. > > ~TJ >
Received on Friday, 14 February 2014 16:05:15 UTC