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

Re: [css-counter-styles] status of "additional" predefined counter styles

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 00:48:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAJGBU481Gzc5r+NJ=aeN1ANPXz6_WPmH6aoOBLBXevEA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the current CSS Counter Styles draft,[1] we read that
> # These additional counter styles are not intended to be supported by
> # user-agents by default
> (in reference to the styles listed in the i18n WG's document.[2])
> However, test results[3] indicate that webkit and blink do actually
> implement a number of these as built-in counter styles; in particular, many
> of the Indian script/language names (with the exception of 'tamil'), and
> several more such as 'arabic-indic', 'persian', etc.
> A smaller number of the "additional" styles are also supported by Firefox,
> such as 'armenian', 'greek', and a number of CJK styles; and a handful also
> by IE.
> Should such styles be moved to the standard collection of predefined styles
> within the Counter Styles spec, with the expectation that all browsers
> should support them? If so, we need to determine which ones to move. Or
> should browsers refrain from implementing these "additional" styles as
> built-ins, so that it's clear to authors that an explicit @counter-style
> rule is needed in order to use them? ISTM the current situation is unhelpful
> from an interop point of view.

Browsers generally shouldn't be implementing random things.  However,
they did support a larger set than the spec currently requires; the
rule we used was just "what was specified in CSS2 and 2.1" to decide
what to keep.

I'm fine with adding more things to the spec if browsers already
implement them, particularly if there are compat issues to deal with.
Feel free to implement what you need, and I'll reflect it in the spec
as necessary.

Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2014 07:49:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:46 UTC