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

Ping? Tab, what's your opinion?


On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>