W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2011

Re: [css3-lists] Alignment of list markers

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 07:55:30 -0700
Message-Id: <599D4D4E-74B2-4DE2-BBD7-EAD92E0DD349@gmail.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
On Jun 6, 2011, at 11:43 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

> I think we should make it clear if/how 'vertical-align' can be used to position list markers.

Supposedly all properties are fair game. 

> I'm strongly in favor of making it useful, and suggest that the marker be positioned as if
> it were an inline-level child of the root inline on the line box it's associated with.

I would expect it to be 'display:inline; vertical-align:inherit' as initial values (which can be overridden by author). and it should be at the same embedding level as any other inline child, similar to '::before'. Thus baseline alignment still works regardless of what else might be on the first line, right? Or the author could change to 'vertical-align: top' or whatever, if he wished. 

Of course, I am assuming 'position: static' unless changed by author in a ::marker rule. I don't know what to think if the marker was created via 'position:marker'. Is it still considered positioned after that, and is it then treated as 'display: block' so that vertical alignment can no longer be set? BTW, does it lose it's marker positioning if I set the 'position' to something else inside the ::marker rule, or is 'position' ignored there? I think that part is unnecessarily confusing. It makes things less clear in situations such as this. 


> Side note: make sure you deal with markers on list items whose first child is a replaced block.

> 
> 

I'm not sure how this changes anything. Isn't ::marker similar to ::before in that regard? I'm probably not understanding something. 
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2011 14:56:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:41 GMT