[cc public-i18n-cjk and unicode_at_unicode.org to get some more eyes on this]
I don't think you revised the algorithm either. I think this discrepancy
has been around for a long time.
As Xidorn points out, we're talking here about characters that, yes,
exist in the kana set, but that are not often used or not often used in
this context.
That said, this whole spec is about being able to customise these lists
however you want. So in a sense the list of characters described in the
spec is a kind of default.
So I'm wondering whether, in that case, it's best to just document the
exisiting implementations, and allow people to modify the list if they
want. Unless you have a list of over 44 items you won't meet the
problem anyway.
Just thinking out loud, really.
RI
On 14/02/2014 23:18, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Richard Ishida <ishida_at_w3.org> wrote:
>> 6.2 Alphabetic: lower-alpha, lower-latin, upper-alpha, upper-latin,
>> lower-greek, hiragana, hiragana-iroha, katakana, katakana-iroha
>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-counter-styles/#simple-alphabetic
>>
>> The hiragana, katakana, hiragana-iroha, and katakana-iroha seem to be
>> implemented in the same way in Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and now Opera. The
>> implementation differs from the spec only by the addition of one or two
>> characters to the basic set.
>>
>> Should we change the spec to align with the implementations?
>>
>> For more information see the test results at
>> http://www.w3.org/International/tests/repository/css3-counter-styles/predefined-styles/results-cstyles#simplealpha
>
> It's weird that the spec differs from implementations. I don't
> *think* I revised those algorithms at all.
>
> I'd prefer to go ahead and match implementations unless they're totally off.
>
> ~TJ
>
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
Unicode_at_unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Received on Sat Feb 15 2014 - 05:46:51 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Feb 15 2014 - 05:46:52 CST