Re: [css-counter-styles] speak-as: auto and the override system

On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:30 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:

> On Saturday 2014-05-10 10:23 +1000, Xidorn Quan wrote:
> > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:08 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-counter-styles/#counter-style-speak-as
> > > says, when describing the 'auto' value:
> > >   # If the system is override, this value has the same effect as the
> > >   # overridden style’s speak-as.
> > >
> > > This has an unusual interaction with the definition of the override
> > > system, which says in
> > > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-counter-styles/#valuedef-override that:
> > >   # If a counter style uses the override system, any unspecified
> > >   # descriptors must be taken from the overridden counter style
> > >   # specified, rather than taking their initial values.
> > >
> > > It means that when the override system is used, speak-as: auto is
> > > equivalent to having an omitted speak-as, and is *not* equivalent to
> > > the overridden system having speak-as: auto.  Both of these seem
> > > wrong to me.
> > >
> > > Instead, I would propose that the 'auto' value say:
> > >   # If the system is override, this value has the same effect that
> > >   # 'auto' would have for the overridden counter style.
> > > which seems more consistent with how the override system otherwise
> > > works.
> > >
> >
> > To my understanding, there is no difference between your proposal and the
> > current spec, though your wording seems to be clearer.
>
> The difference is that given:
>
> @counter-style base {
>   system: cyclic;
>   symbols: ‣;
>   speak-as: numeric;
> }
>
> @counter-style derived {
>   system: override base;
>   speak-as: auto;
> }
>
> The current spec says that the counter style 'derived' is spoken as
> numeric, whereas I propose that it be spoken as bullet (which is
> what 'auto' means for the cyclic system).
>
> (This is what your patches in [1] implement for 'speak-as', although
> you followed the spec for the equivalent wording for 'range'.)
>

You are right (though the wording is different for 'auto' between
'speak-as' and 'range'.) I misunderstood the spec, and agree with what you
proposed.

- Xidorn