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

Re: [css-counter-styles] About override loop

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:04:52 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDD9MNQg7Wj3Fn_MFJGabA7Y1sRaODC9pvqJ3b0HAeHYNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fallback does not require an explicit loop detection. The spec has
> said that it is not necessarily an error to have a fallback loop. The
> behavior for override loop I propose here is, to some extent, similar
> with the way for fallback loop. Different from speak-as, which has
> only one value, fallback and override could affect multiple values
> (fallback for discrete numbers, override for descriptors). Doing the
> minimal failure, IMHO, is more intuitive for authors and also easier
> to implement.

Fallback cycles have some use, and less possibility (imo) of
confusion.  I don't think there's any possible use-case, beyond silly
tricks, for override cycles.

> Imagine that, when an author writes an override loop by accident, if
> he sees only the descriptors specified in the rule is effective, he
> may think there is a spelling mistake of the name, and check over and
> over again without catching the true reason. However if he finds some
> descriptors in overridden system is also effective, while only the
> counter representation is wrong, he will have a higher probability to
> follow the override chain and notice the loop.

My fear is that only *some* descriptors will get defaulted, and the
author won't notice it for some time; it'll just look weird instead,
perhaps for a long amount of time.  A more obvious breakage makes it
more likely that the problem will be noticed and looked into.

Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 22:05:39 UTC

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