- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 12:01:36 -0700
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela at cs.tut.fi> wrote: > Lachlan Hunt wrote: >> Regardless of whether or not we agree on a common glyph to use for >> this, ?we should at least agree on the applicable CSS styles used to >> achieve >> the rendering, which is essential so that authors have an easier time >> override them with their own styles. > > It?s far too premature to consider such things. We don?t know what are the > feasible or optimal renderings of <details> elements. Actually, if you wish > to make them widely understood and used, you _don?t_ want to encourage > authors to suggest their idiosyncratic renderings. On the average, a web > author, left alone, creates a much poorer user interface than a person > designing a web browser ? simply because the latter is some kind of a > professional in such matters. <details> is definitely something we want to make fully author-stylable. >> If we use 'list-style-type', it seems reasonable to at least agree on >> a common list-style-type value. > > Why should we use list-style-type for something that clearly ain?t no list? Because it appears that the disclosure triangle wants to have the same behavior that ::marker does. Don't be misled by the name - all that list-style-type does is help construct the default value for 'content' on ::marker. It has nothing to do with things that are semantically lists, per se. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 12:01:36 UTC