W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2007

Re: CSS Generated content selection

From: Spartanicus <mk98762@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:05:42 +0100
Message-ID: <n2m-g.idvp235p1gnsnj4l8q5m149bncike7u742@4ax.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

"Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:

>You see it as a flaw in the spec, I see it as a flaw in current browser 
>support. So that's what I'm objecting to...we're diametrically opposite 
>on this one.

Apparently my point of view has some support given the message by Steven
Pemberton in this thread in which he stated that "This has been changed
in XHTML2 at the request of many people."

>>>> Can you present a use case where the distinction is relevant if the
>>>> ability to reference by marker is dealt with by including such
>>>> references as part of the content proper?
>>> I'm not talking about referencing by marker. I'm talking about denoting, in a copy/pasted bit of text, that something was an ordered list rather than an unordered one.
>> 
>> And you get that (and more reliably) when as I suggest the markers are
>> included in the content proper.
>
>You could say the same about bulleted list items. Should the bullet be 
>part of the actual content as well?

My arguments add up to the conclusion that all native/generated list
markers are effectively decorative. This also applies to ordered list
markers since attempting to use the supposed semantic order can be
broken so easily.

>From that I conclude that the existence of 2 list elements, <ul> and
<ol> is another design mistake, ideally we should have only one <list>
element.

>From an authoring perspective in the current situation my argument is
that when the order of list items is more than mere presentation the
list markers should be made part of the content proper.

>Is it a flaw in current browsers 
>that they try to at least put a "*" in front of bulleted list items when 
>copy/pasting?

Yes. (only Moz derived browsers do so of the three I quick tested this
in btw)

-- 
Spartanicus
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 19:16:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:50 GMT