[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[css-counter-styles] The entire rule being invalid vs. not defining a counter style when name/descriptors are wrong #5717

Closed
xiaochengh opened this issue Nov 11, 2020 · 2 comments
Closed

[css-counter-styles] The entire rule being invalid vs. not defining a counter style when name/descriptors are wrong #5717

xiaochengh opened this issue Nov 11, 2020 · 2 comments
Labels
Closed Accepted by CSSWG Resolution Commenter Satisfied Commenter has indicated satisfaction with the resolution / edits. css-counter-styles-3 Current Work

Comments

@xiaochengh
Copy link
Contributor

#1682 (comment) resolved that:

RESOLVED: treat invalid counter styles the way we treat invalid font faces

The spec change log says:

@counter-style rules that are invalid due to missing descriptors just fail to create a counter style; they’re otherwise still valid rules.

I understand these resolutions as: if a @counter-style rule has wrong descriptors, it should still be parsed into a valid rule and appear in the OM; it only fails to create a counter style and hence do not affect any counter.

However, the current spec text makes the entire @counter-style rule invalid in some cases:

If the system is cyclic, the symbols descriptor must contain at least one counter symbol, or else the @counter-style rule is invalid.

If the system is fixed, the symbols descriptor must contain at least one counter symbol, or else the @counter-style rule is invalid.

If the system is symbolic, the symbols descriptor must contain at least one counter symbol, or else the @counter-style rule is invalid.

If the system is alphabetic, the symbols descriptor must contain at least two counter symbols, or else the @counter-style rule is invalid.

If the system is numeric, the symbols descriptor must contain at least two counter symbols, or else the @counter-style rule is invalid.

If the system is additive, the additive-symbols descriptor must contain at least one additive tuple, or else the @counter-style rule is invalid.

If a @counter-style uses the extends system, it must not contain a symbols or additive-symbols descriptor, or else the @counter-style rule is invalid.

Should they be revised into not defining a counter style?
@fantasai fantasai added the css-counter-styles-3 Current Work label Nov 12, 2020
@andruud
Copy link
Member
andruud commented Nov 12, 2020

I'd interpret "invalid" in "or else the @counter-style rule is invalid" to mean "does not define a counter style", but I suppose it could be interpreted both ways. In general it would be nice to have a clearer distinction between "invalid at parse-time" and "invalid at @-rule interpretation-time". There are other @-rule-defining specs that have the same problem as well.

@tabatkins
Copy link
Member

Saying that a construct is "invalid" always means at parse-time by default. That said, we resolved that this should instead just prevent the rule from defining a counter style, so I've removed the language saying it's invalid, and adding some more detail to the 'system' section about what the requirements are and what they mean.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Closed Accepted by CSSWG Resolution Commenter Satisfied Commenter has indicated satisfaction with the resolution / edits. css-counter-styles-3 Current Work
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@andruud @tabatkins @fantasai @xiaochengh