W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2014

Re: [css-counter-styles] question about redefining predefined styles

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:06:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBvpAXGN_3FWc4uKLG=FWfiZ7yhgXfaPg_cHMWEE6RX=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> According to the spec, it seems that all predefined styles except
>>>>> 'decimal' could be redefined by authors via @counter-style. My
>>>>> question is that, should the new defination affect other predefined
>>>>> styles depend on it? For example, if 'cjk-decimal' is redefined,
>>>>> should 'japanese-informal' fallback to the predefined 'cjk-decimal' or
>>>>> the new one? I prefer it to only depend on the name, which means the
>>>>> new one wins here.
>>>>> I think this behavior, including the redefinablity of predefined
>>>>> styles, should be clearly noted in section "'@counter-style' rule".
>>>> Yes, it depends only on the name.  This is already specified, in that
>>>> the 'fallback' descriptor only talks about names, and the normative
>>>> definitions of the various types all use the normal 'fallback'
>>>> descriptor.  Nothing else needs to be said, normatively.
>>>> I could add a note somewhere if you think it's unclear, though.  If
>>>> you'd like this, where do you think it would be appropriate?
>>> I think the note should follow the paragraph with the term
>>> '<counter-style-name>' highlight.
>> Do you mean this paragraph?
>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-counter-styles/#typedef-counter-style-name
> That's right.

All right, I added one later down in the same section.

Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 01:07:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:19 UTC