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

Re: [css3-lists] list-style-position: outside

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:38:34 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTimMgTXS7bcomnSYYN-CA=T=eTR0oABU7cxaX5p-0_FWmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> regarding the definition of "list-style-position: outside", I see there has
> been some back and forth. The latest WD (dated 24 May 2011), although still
> missing a lot of detail, seemed to show some promise w.r.t. picking a simple
> and predictable approach for horizontal alignment. Not sure about choosing
> the list item's *parent* as a reference, though. For instance, depending on
> which edge is actually referred to, it might not work well with current UA
> stylesheets for HTML (where the space needed by an 'outside' list marker is
> provided by padding on ul/ol).

Using the parent of the list item for alignment was done specifically
to help match current UA stylesheets, so all the markers will sit in
the same gutter when you have mixed-direction content, rather than
some markers being on the left and some being on the right, depending
on the list item's direction.


> In the editor's draft, 'hanging' has been removed from section 4, but its
> behavior seems to have been transferred to 'outside'.

No, I just transferred the part that was previous referenced by the
"As hanging, but..." line.  Any behavior currently in 'outside' was
always there.


> As written, it has a
> lot of issues (e.g. marker will overlap border, marker can end up in the
> middle of a table, several tests in the CSS 2.1 suite are being
> contradicted).

Could you explain this more?  My intention is to basically describe
the current behavior of outside list markers in IE9 (and in Webkit to
a lesser extent).  There shouldn't be any more overlapping than
already occurs with outside markers.


> It also seems inconsistent with what's being specified in
> section 7 (position:marker), and I'm not sure which one is intended to apply
> (or what the relationship between these sections are).

I'm extra-confused about this part.  ^_^  More detail, please?


> To me it seems to make sense to align to the "start" edge of the border area
> of the list-item's principal box.

This doesn't solve the mixed-direction-content case, where some list
items are ltr and some are rtl.  It would make bullets appear on both
sides of the list, requiring you to specify gutter on both sides or
risk some bullets disappearing.


> Vertically it seems trickier, it should
> probably align to the first linebox satisfying some criteria (e.g. in-flow),
> creating one if none exists. Is this a sensible starting point?

That's what it does.  The ::marker is first placed just prior to the
first text (I think I need to clean it up to refer to in-flow), and
then it's positioned, with the vertical position being its static
position.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2011 17:39:21 GMT

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