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

RE: [css3-speech] reading list-style markers

From: Belov, Charles <Charles.Belov@sfmta.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 10:26:56 -0700
Message-ID: <E17F75B6E86AE842A57B4534F82D0376CD2AF6@MTAMAIL.muni.sfgov.org>
To: "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: "Daniel Weck" <daniel.weck@gmail.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
fantasai wrote on Wednesday, June 08, 2011 12:27 AM
> On 06/08/2011 03:49 PM, Daniel Weck wrote:
> >
> > On 8 Jun 2011, at 02:17, fantasai wrote:
> >
> >> On 06/07/2011 05:27 PM, Daniel Weck wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I added:
> >>> "For hierarchical lists structures, it is recommended that 
> >>> user-agents announce the nesting depth of list items."
> >>>
> >>> ...which I think is loose-enough to cover various begin/end 
> >>> announcement styles for list items.
> >>
> >> Per RFC 2119, that is not a very loose statement. I do not 
> think this 
> >> belongs in the spec as a normative recommendation. An 
> example, maybe, 
> >> but not such a strong requirement.
> >
> > The statement per say is not loose (it is effectively a SHOULD 
> > conformance requirement), but the formulation "announce the 
> nesting depth" offers scope for implementation-specific 
> variants. Is this problematic ?
> 
> What makes you think that this is *absolutely* the *right* 
> way to present lists? That the UA and the user should not 
> have the option of formatting them differently?
> 

How about "indicate the nesting depth in some manner," which 
implies even more flexibility.  I do think it is important 
to indicate the nesting depth in some manner, to the SHOULD 
level.  Otherwise a list such as the following, admittedly 
contrived but certainly possible, could be difficult to follow.

I. blah
II. blah
	1. blah
	2. blah
III. blah
	1. blah
	2. blah
		i. blah
		ii. blah
	3. blah
IV. blah
	1. blah
	2. blah
		i. blah
		ii. blah
	3. blah
		i. blah
		ii. blah	
		iii. blah
	4. blah
V. blah

I don't believe anything in the statement precludes the UA or user
from formatting it differently.
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 17:43:01 GMT

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