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

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.


I hope it won't cause an additional delay for the spec to be CR.

- Xidorn