- From: Markus Ernst <derernst@gmx.ch>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:28:26 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, ambrose.li@gmail.com
- Cc: www-style@w3.org, bert@w3.org, fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net, alan@css-class.com
-------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Datum: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 16:28:07 -0700 > Von: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> > On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2 June 2010 14:12, Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com> wrote: > >> I disagree to regarding the placement of the list marker. For Boris' > >> example. > >> > >> * 123 WERBEH > >> * latin latin > >> * latin latin > >> > >> > >> To achieve this, an author can use a child element. > >> > >> <ul> > >> <li><span dir="rtl">HEBREW 123</span></li> > >> <li>latin latin</li> > >> <li>latin latin</li> > >> </ul> > > > > But wouldn't it be very counterintuitive to have <li dir=rtl> mean > > something different than <li><span dir=rtl> ? > > > > As an uninformed author (i.e., one that is not following this list > > closely), I find it very surprising that I'll have to use a child > > element when I can set the direction in the list item. > > I find it relatively clear. The ::marker is a child of the <li>, so > @dir on the <li> affects it, but @dir on a child of the <li> doesn't. This is certainly true from a technical POV, but for me as an author it does not make sense if list markers switch positions inside a list. Treating markers as children of the <li> element might be sensible to make them accessible for styling and such things, but from a non-technical POV they rather look like being a property of the list than a child of the list item. I agree with Ambrose that it would be more intuitive for markers to behave consistently across the whole <ol> or <ul>. -- GMX.ch - Schweizer FreeMail-Dienst mit über 800.000 Mitgliedern E-Mail & mehr! Kostenlos: http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/chfreemail
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2010 07:29:07 UTC