62927 - "list-style-type: cjk-ideographic" shows wrong number

Status: RESOLVED INVALID

(Core :: Internationalization, defect, P3)

Description

[Koike Kazuhiko]

"list-style-type: cjk-ideographic" shows wrong number if the list
contains over 100 items.

Comment 1

[Koike Kazuhiko]

Attachment: Testcase

Comment 2

[Koike Kazuhiko]

This bug was reported on Bugzilla-jp.
http://bugzilla.mozilla.gr.jp/show_bug.cgi?id=538

Comment 3

[nhottanscp]

Reassign to erik.

Comment 4

[Frank Tang]

reassign back to ftang and mark Future. In what sense it is wrong ?  What do you 
expect and what do you see ? Why you expect that? IS there any standard/ 
specification document how it should format ?

Comment 5

[Katsuhiko Momoi]

We currently see the following:

one-hundred-zero-one  (4 Chinese characters for 101)

In Japanese, we don't use "one" in front of "hundred", "thousand",
etc. Neither do we use "zero" except in the terminal position.
So for Japanese, '101' should be:

hundred-one  (2 Chinese characters rather than 4).

Comment 6

[Katsuhiko Momoi]

Can we make this sensitive to language differences?

Comment 7

[Frank Tang]

accept

Comment 8

[Katsuhiko Momoi]

As a caveat, let me list how each decimal looks like in
Japanese. It would be good to contrast these with 
Chinese (and Korean).

ten
hundred
thousand
* one-ten thousand
hundred thousand
million
*? (one) ten million  -- this may be optionally with 'one'
* one hundred million
billion

These are really complcated but I guess for practical purposes
we don't have to worry about anything beyond 1000?

Comment 9

[Hideki Ikemoto]

Attachment: proposed patch

Comment 10

[Frank Tang]

Hideki Ikemoto- I do not agree w/ your change. For Traditional Chinese, we should 
keep the one before the hundred. Can you read my paper in 
http://people.netscape.com/ftang/paper/unicode16/part2.html
The problem is CSS2 really do not define this clearly. And I really think we need 
different type for ja/ko/tc/sc since we also use different Unicode character. 

I think we should work on the documentation level first. 

Comment 11

[Jungshik Shin]

As ftang wrote, cjk-ideographic in CSS2 is ill-defined. CSS3 is clearer but is
full of errors (wrong characters). ftang sent the corrections to the W3 CSS-WG.
So did I along with addtional list styles for Korean, but the WG yet has to work
on them. 

Comment 12

[Frank Tang]

what a hack. I have not touch mozilla code for 2 years. I didn't read these bugs
for 2 years. And they are still there. Just close them as won't fix to clean up.

Comment 13

[Travis Chase]

Mass Bug Re-Open of bugs Frank Tang Closed with no good reason. Spam is his
fault not my own

Comment 14

[Travis Chase]

Mass Re-assinging Frank Tangs old bugs that he closed won't fix and had to be
re-open. Spam is his fault not my own

Comment 15

[Simon Montagu :smontagu]

Assigning to Jungshik

Comment 16

[yiorsi]

Firefox has achieved Longhand East Asian Counter Styles, used to distinguish between different language habits.

cjk-ideographic
This counter style is identical to trad-chinese-informal.

Specifications: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-counter-styles/ # valuedef-simp-chinese-informal

Comment 17

[yiorsi]

Specifications: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-counter-styles/#valuedef-simp-chinese-informal

Comment 18

[Gordon P. Hemsley [:GPHemsley]]

(In reply to yiorsi from comment #16)
> Firefox has achieved Longhand East Asian Counter Styles, used to distinguish
> between different language habits.
> 
> cjk-ideographic
> This counter style is identical to trad-chinese-informal.
> 
> Specifications:
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-counter-styles/#valuedef-simp-chinese-informal

Does this mean that this is now the expected behavior (since 'cjk-infographic' is no longer intended to represent Japanese)?

Comment 19

[yiorsi]

Yes, the Japanese should be: "japanese-informal", and "japanese-formal".

Comment 20

[Gordon P. Hemsley [:GPHemsley]]

(In reply to yiorsi from comment #19)
> Yes, the Japanese should be: "japanese-informal", and "japanese-formal".

In that case, this isn't a bug (anymore), so resolving INVALID.