[css-lists-3] counter-set vs counter-increment

[fantasai]

Re: Counter properties in CSS Lists Editor's Draft

There's some ergonomc awkwardness about counter-set vs counter-increment, e.g. in #3686 it's pointed out that you'd have to zero out the list-item increment when setting the counter for

. (This particular case is technically problematic as well as unweildy because it'd get wiped out by an author counter-increment declaration; but there's some awkwardness either way and it doesn't cascade well for anyone.)

I'm wondering if instead of applying counter-reset, then counter-set, then counter-increment, we should apply counter-reset, then counter-increment, then counter-set? Then when you “set” a counter on an element, you actually get that value back, which seems a little more intuitive (and also solves the list-item problem).

[fantasai]

It also gives better cascading behavior in general (not just for the author/ua list-item negotiation).

[AmeliaBR]

Does counter-set have any implementations? That could create compat issues.

If there's no compatibility objections, I agree that it is preferable if counter-set overrides any increments. If I specify counter-set: chapter 5, that's probably what I want.

The downside is that counter-reset: chapter 5 would work differently; an increment declared on the same element would add to the initial value. But that's less likely to be a problem once counter-set is supported; counter-reset can be used as intended, on the parent element that defines the counter scope.

[emilio]

There's Gecko's implementation, but that's not on release yet so we can change that without much hassle I'd guess.

But I'd rather get a speedy resolution than doing it once it's hit release.

cc @MatsPalmgren in case he has objections.

[MatsPalmgren]

I like this proposal. It makes counter-set simpler to use for authors and implementors alike. In particular, we can now map

to just counter-set: list-item N making it independent of any counter-increment the author might have on that element (as @heycam noted as a problem in #3686 (comment)).

(I'm fixing Gecko here.)

[css-meeting-bot]

The CSS Working Group just discussed apply counter-set after counter-increment, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: apply counter-set after counter-increment

The full IRC log of that discussion

Topic:apply counter-set after counter-increment
github: https://github.com//issues/3810
fantasai: This was an issue around interaction. Property values you have to set if you're incremeneting on every item and want to set to a particular value. yOu have to set it minus increment. That's ergonomically awk
(I'm in favor)
fantasai: Suggestion is set counter set after increment so if you set foo 5 it will be 5 no matter the counter increment
fantasai: Generally better cascading behavior. Counterset wins over counter incrememnt rather than adding to it.
gregwhitworth: When you set counterset it starts from that place?
fantasai: Sets an explicit value for the counter
gregwhitworth: And doesn't inc after that?
fantasai: If you have nth-child 5 counterset: chapter 5 it will have 5 instead of the increment added to that.
gregwhitworth: Then increment from 5?
fantasai: On other elements, yeah.
fantasai: On a particular element you apply counter-reset then counter increment then counter set
plinss: Makes sense to me. Looking at issue Gecko impl but will change. Any other impl here?
fantasai: I think they're only ones. They committed the fix a day ago
plinss: Objections?
RESOLVED: apply counter-set after counter-increment