- From: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 08:13:23 +1100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMdq69_dh=2rAKtiM6xhZzOdDcaYnrzJdHHa0q9hq=NUFhyEew@mail.gmail.com>
On Saturday, February 22, 2014, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 4:12 AM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com<javascript:;>> > wrote: > >> The current draft doesn't discuss what will happen if there is an > >> override loop. However, it is obvious that all styles in an override > >> loop should actually override 'decimal', like those override a > >> nonexistent style. I just think it is better to mention such case in > >> the spec. > > > > After doing some thinking, I propose that only the descriptor which is > > unspecified in all styles in the cycle should fall to 'decimal'. > > > > For example, if there is three styles: A, B, and C: > > > > @counter-style A { system: override B; negative: A; } > > @counter-style B { system: override C; prefix: B; } > > @counter-style C { system: override A; suffix: C; } > > > > Then all three styles should use 'A' for 'negative', 'B' for 'prefix', > > and 'C' for 'suffix', and other descriptors will inherent the value of > > 'decimal'. > > Hm, I think that's more trouble than it's worth. The cycle is an > error in the first place; we *could* try to patch things up and do a > minimal amount of failure, but I'd rather just make the entire thing > fail in a more obvious fashion. > As it is an error, would you mind leave it for implementations to decide how to deal with it? - Xidorn Quan
Received on Friday, 21 February 2014 21:13:51 UTC