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

Re: [CSS3-content] [css3-lists] [css3-page] Implied counter-increment

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:20:32 -0400
Message-ID: <471698C0.5010301@inkedblade.net>
To: "Grant, Melinda" <melinda.grant@hp.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org

Grant, Melinda wrote:
> fantasai said:
>> This means that if the author specifies li { display: list-item; } and
>>    li { counter-increment: mycounter; }
>> or
>>    li { counter-increment: none; }
>> or
>>    li{ counter-reset: list-item; counter-increment: none; } 
>> the 'list-item' counter is still created and incremented, but...
> 
> I lost you here.  Given that the list-item counter "can be directly
> affected using the 'counter-increment'" property, why would list-item
> increment in this case?

Because as specced, list-item is only affected when it is manipulated
explicitly. The difference between 'page' and 'list-item' is that
'list-item' is that list-item's +1 increment is always implied unless
explicitly overridden, whereas 'page's +1 increment is only implied
if a 'page' counter doesn't otherwise appear in the CSS.

> I would think the two counters (page and list-item) would behave the
> same under these conditions.

They should. As specced, they currently do not.

> (Based on the attached, it appears Opera agrees with you, Mozilla
> doesn't display a marker at all in this case, IE and Prince don't
> increment...)

IE doesn't support counters, and I'm guessing Prince doesn't support
the implied 'list-item' counter (which is still just a draft proposal
in CSS3 Lists).

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 23:20:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:55 GMT