W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2003

Re: Reversing list order

From: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:41:27 -0800
Cc: www-style@w3.org, webmaster@joshuasplace.net (Joshua Clinard)
To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Message-Id: <96B62310-58C9-11D7-9368-00039382AC6C@apple.com>

FWIW, for XUL elements at least, Mozilla supports -moz-box-direction, 
which allows you to reverse elements easily, and it also supports 
-moz-box-ordinal, which allows for complete scrambling of the elements. 
  We use this to do reordering of columns in a tree view for example 
without changing the underlying DOM, and -moz-box-direction allows us 
e.g., flip the Mozilla chrome for bidi.

dave

On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 01:53 PM, David Woolley wrote:

>
>>
>> I agree.  Consider html mail clients, reversing the order of messages
>> would be a one-liner client-side script, instead of a round-trip to
>> the server.  Could this be added to the list module easily?
>
> I assume that the idea is to use scripting here, as very few users will
> be happy with alternative style sheets.  In that case, the example is
> better handled by having the script re-arrange the nodes in the 
> document
> object model.  As a precedent here, Elm does not list its article
> reference numbers in reverse order when you reverse the sort order; it
> renumbers them forwards, in the new order.
>
> I would suggest that any browser that is new enough to implement such
> a new property, and implements scripting of styles, will implement
> enough of the W3C document object model to allow it to do such a 
> shuffle,
> especially as it already has to cope with the resultant re-rendering
> to support the property.
>
>> element would be more consistent than applying it to a <ul> element..
>
> Definitely; using ul here is giving it semantics that it doesn't have.
> Any de facto semantics, under CSS, are negated by the fact that the
> proposal assumes a radical revision of the idea that CSS boxes are 
> placed
> in order of arrival, except when explicitly positioned.
>
> I think the fact that this breaks incremental rendering has already 
> been
> mentioned.  I tend to agree that once you have broken that, you might 
> as
> well have reverse rendering of the nodes of an element applied 
> generally,
> not just to lists.
>
> To Joshua: you need to subscribe to www-style@w3.org, as this is a CSS
> issue, not an HTML one and was off topic on the www-html list.
>
Received on Monday, 17 March 2003 17:41:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:20 GMT