- From: Axel Dahmen <brille1@hotmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 00:03:04 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
"Brad Kemper" <brad.kemper@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:CBE272DE-46C6-46C1-883C-CF9F87707D63@gmail.com... > > On Mar 23, 2010, at 4:46 PM, Axel Dahmen wrote: > >> Still, wouldn't it be more appropriate to allow <string> values for the >> list-style-type property? Why separating this value from all the other >> predefined values allowed on list-style-type? > > By using a ::marker pseudo-element, you can also apply other properties to > it as well, such as color. And the 'content' property is already well > established for use of setting textual (and other) content for stylistic > reasons. I see... Thanks for enlightening me. I fully agree with you. Still I have a strong feeling that there is some ambiguity in the definition of list-style-type then. If using ::marker (which I tend to favour myself as well), wouldn't it be appropriate then to omit the <glyph> entities in favour of a static value of, say "fixed"? What if a list-style-type rule defines "circle" and the ::marker defines something else? I see an ambiguity here. Of course, it could be circumvented by declaration (e.g. "marker supersedes list-style-type"), but wouldn't it be cleaner then to leave out the <glyph> values at all? What if list-style-type defines any of the <numeric> or <algorithmic> values? What about ::marker then? Cheers, Axel Dahmen www.axeldahmen.de
Received on Friday, 26 March 2010 23:03:49 UTC