#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?
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.3