[counter-styles] i18n-ISSUE-339: Should Japanese spec styles match implementations or vice versa?

[Richard Ishida]

[cc public-i18n-cjk and ***@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

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

[Tab Atkins Jr.]

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.

I've made the change to match existing implementations, adding two
characters each to 'hiragana' and 'katakana', and dropping the last
character from each of their -iroha variants.

~TJ