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

Re: One more list-item thought

From: <staffan.mahlen@comhem.se>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 16:12:45 +0200
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3F64937D.3438.1AB2BD5@localhost>

On 14 Sep 2003 at 12:36, Ian Hickson wrote:

> > (please note that i am really not sure myself).
> 
> Designing standards tends to go in the opposite direction -- think of
> something useful, then try to design it -- rather than specifying
> something, then trying to find a use for it! :-) (Granted, sometimes us
> W3C members might give one the opposite impression, but...)
You could have fooled me :). I was however actually mainly referring 
ot my lack of understanding the deeper motivations/issues here.

> >     (Example snipped)
> 
> That would result in:
> 
>    1. First
>    2. Second
>      1. Text
>         2. Third
>         3. Fourth
>      4. Text
>    2. Third
> 
Oh i agree totally (assuming you meant "3. Fifth" at the end), 
however neither IE6, Ns7.1, nor Opera7.11 does it seems. They even 
have two different approaches, neither of which seem correct (I 
didn't test the latest Mozilla).

To my mind this case should be equivalent in both the new and the old 
model, but it seem to be troublesome in the old one. Does the new 
model makes this easier or is this just a case of browser bugs?

>Maybe there is value to changing the way
>list-item works. How about saying '::marker' is generated whenever
>its 'content' computes to something other than 'inhibit', but
>'normal' for '::marker' computes to 'inhibit' unless its superior
>parent's 'display' computes to 'list-item'?

Hmm, care to elaborate on that bit about "superior parent"? I did not 
quite get it.

 /Staffan
Received on Sunday, 14 September 2003 10:15:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:23 GMT