W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2005

Re: Display: inline-table

From: Staffan Mhln <staffan.mahlen@comhem.se>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 19:13:31 +0100
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <420A60DB.11335.5531259@localhost>

On 9 Feb 2005 at 13:29, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Staffan Mhln wrote:
> > Ok, so we've got 'inline-block' and 'inline-table'. The 'run-in' depends 
> > on following content, but why is there no 'inline-list-item'?
> 
> CSS3 probably will. It's on the working group's agenda.
> 
Given what you write in another answer i hope not, see below.

> > (IMHO the marker should not be 'display' dependant at all of course).
> 
> Not sure what you mean here.

I was trying to say that i don't think 'list-item' is a real 
'display' value, its just a block with a marker. The marker "should" 
work even if the element was inline or something else, while
'list-style-position' might not apply to all 'display' types.

I think this is probably what you were referring to in your post:

On 9 Feb 2005 at 14:32, Ian Hickson wrote:
...
>    el { display: inline; annotate: list-marker; }
>    el::marker { ... }

Given something like that and possibly allowing counters to have 
multiple levels (i dont see how the CSS3 draft copes with nested 
lists):
body:before, ul:before, ol:before,... {counter-push(list-item)}
body:after, ul:after, ol:after,... {counter-pop(list-item)}

one might get the effect that the following author rule would just 
work:
li {display: inline}
and li elements could have default style that make them 'block'. I
don't have any idea how 'list-style-type' would work with something
like your annotate-marker though.

 /Staffan
Received on Wednesday, 9 February 2005 18:14:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:35 GMT