W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > April 2011

[whatwg] Styling <details>

From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 00:20:11 +0300
Message-ID: <A1C557E4755F4E5EA2762CBA3BA1FEF7@JukanPC>
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Jukka K. Korpela
> <jkorpela at cs.tut.fi> wrote:
>> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> <details> is definitely something we want to make fully
>>> author-stylable.
>>
>> I don?t. Who?s this ?we? you are talking about, and why do they want
>> to make <details> author-stylable even before a single browser has
>> _any_ support to the element, at the functional level?
>
> "We" being, I suspect, the browser community.

Thank you for the clarification. I would prefer seeing _one_ decent 
implementatiom of <details> before considering any fine tuning.

> If that's overreaching,
> then I'm content to say that *I* want it to be fully author-stylable,

The primary question, as I see it, is to get decent implementations in the 
first place. I don?t see crowds of authors yelling for author-stylability.

>> Does it? Why do you imply the visual concept of a ?disclosure
>> triangle?, and how does that relate to the behavior proposed for
>> ?::marker? in some draft?
>
> I don't understand the question.

Why does <details> need to have any ?disclosure triangle??

> However, the default visual behavior
> of <details> is suggested in the HTML spec.

You misspelled ?the current HTML(5) draft/sketch?. And I would not take it 
as more than a suggestion in a work in progress, which is what it really is.

>> I know that many CSS property names are misleading. But
>> list-style-type, as defined in published CSS recommendations, isn?t
>> bound to any ?::marker?.
>
> It certainly is, in the Lists spec.

Please cite the recommendation by its official name and/or URL.

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ 
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 14:20:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:03 GMT