Re: list-item alignment in CSS

Chris Lilley wrote:
> Whoops yessir. Er.. I liked the smiley. Noticed it even.

Huh? I could've sworn I put the "hidden" attribute on that! (~:

> Agreed, and I look forward to hearing it. David, you start. After
> what the early implementors and page designers think, want, and how
> interpret the spec is valuable feedback.

I've already commented a few times on my dislike for "list-item"
display sub-type. There are standalone blocks and there are inline
blocks. The more a property can apply to all elements, the cleaner the

As for what happens when a block element has been declared inline...my
first inclination is to say it should be appended to the preceding
element, so that if an inline list were to follow this comma-terminated
paragraph, 1. The list would be a continuation of the paragraph. 2.
Without special treatment of :before and :after pseudo-elements --
which could be different on the first and/or the last list element --
it would be of limited usefulness.

If :before and :after applied to all elements it would be relatively
simple to construct inline lists from existing elements, using classes
for first and last element and given some counter mechanism. And
speaking of counters, why not treat decimal | lower-roman | upper-roman
| lower-alpha | upper-alpha | as sibling-counters in any :before and
:after pseudo-element? The counter would have to increment with each
subsequent base element occurrence regardless of class.
> Actually there has been recent discussion about what happens with a
> nested list where different list items have left-to-right and
> directionality and then some joker sets the entire enclosing UL to be
> display: inline.

You mean like (1) A phrase in english. .cibirA ni noitinifed A (a)
.cibirA ni noitinifed rehtonA (b)

That seems kinda silly. Perhaps a new line should occur when direction
changes, regardless of display type.

David Perrell