- From: Simon Montagu <smontagu@smontagu.org>
- Date: Sun, 03 May 2015 11:01:05 +0300
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org
On 05/01/2015 04:26 PM, fantasai wrote: > On 04/21/2015 01:44 AM, Richard Ishida wrote: >> On 21/04/2015 08:56, Simon Montagu wrote: >>>> I bring this up because I see a testcase which tests 20000/20001 fails >>>> >on our impl [2], but AFAICS, the behavior of WebKit/Blink matches ours >>>> >(except that they don't reorder the marker text correctly.) And I >>>> think >>>> >that test should be rejected. >>>> > >>>> >[1]http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-counter-styles/#hebrew >>>> >[2] >>>> >http://www.w3.org/International/tests/repo/results/predefined-counter-styles#simplenumeric >>>> >>>> > >>>> >- Xidorn >>> I agree that the implication in the test that Hebrew counter style must >>> only be implemented up to a fixed ceiling is problematical. >> >> >> the test currently reflects what the spec says. If the spec is changed, >> then the test can be changed too. > > The CSSWG resolved to allow implementations to implement past the ceiling > (but must implement up to the ceiling, of course, and must use the fallback > style for whatever happens after the UA's own ceiling). > > So that means the test needs to allow two different renderings: one with > the fallback, one with a correct Hebrew numeric representation. (CSSWG > reftests can express this requirement by linking to two separate > references.) > > > Simon, is there any number that is definitively past the limits of the > numbering system? No, the numbering system just gets more and more unwieldy, and more liable to ambiguity because of the lack of a zero symbol, as the numbers get higher. Its a judgment call at what exact point it becomes unusable.
Received on Sunday, 3 May 2015 08:01:36 UTC