W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > April 2011

[whatwg] Styling <details>

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 08:55:04 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTimQ9kJ1ToNFOJhzJHa6FiuW4fvA9A@mail.gmail.com>
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.

Yup, looks good.

Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 08:55:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:32 UTC