- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 08:55:04 -0700
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt at lachy.id.au> wrote: > 1. The rendering of details will, unfortunately, inherit the quirks mode > rendering of list-items, where the bullet is a fixed size in quirks mode, > and based on the font-size in standards mode. ?This is a quirk implemented > by Firefox, IE and Opera for display: list-item; though WebKit doesn't seem > to. ?We are not sure if this quirk is still required for web compatibility. You mean that it will inherit that behavior *in quirks mode*, right? That's not a big deal - old pages won't use <details>, and new pages shouldn't use quirks mode. (Interesting that we don't have that quirk - that probably constitutes decent evidence at this point that the quirk is unnecessary. I'll try to remember to file a bug on Gecko about it.) > 2. If the author attempts to shoot their own foot off by using: > > ?summary { display: none; } > > This leaves an empty <details> box of zero height in the closed state with > no way to open it, and the renders the content without a summary or > disclosure widget in the <details open> state. > > We think this is acceptable, and that we should not introduce the magic that > exists in Chrome's experimental implementation, where they render the > default summary that says "Details". Yes, I think that's acceptable. The default summary should only show up if there is no <summary> element - just hiding the summary element shouldn't have any special effect. The author's doing it on purpose, after all. Our implementation is just really buggy. > 3. We'd like to get some feedback from web developers, and agreement from > other browser vendors, about exactly which glyphs are most appropriate to > use for these disclosure states. ?We considered two alternatives, but we > think these three glyphs are the most appropriate. > > U+25B8 (?) BLACK RIGHT-POINTING SMALL TRIANGLE > U+25C2 (?) BLACK LEFT-POINTING SMALL TRIANGLE > U+25BE (?) BLACK DOWN-POINTING SMALL TRIANGLE Yup, looks good. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 08:55:04 UTC