- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 12:56:13 -0700
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela at cs.tut.fi> wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > >> <details> is definitely something we want to make fully >> author-stylable. > > I don?t. Who?s this ?we? you are talking about, and why do they want to make > <details> author-stylable even before a single browser has _any_ support to > the element, at the functional level? "We" being, I suspect, the browser community. If that's overreaching, then I'm content to say that *I* want it to be fully author-stylable, but I believe Moz feels similarly (Tantek is working on making the form controls more author-stylable). >>> 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. > > Does it? Why do you imply the visual concept of a ?disclosure triangle?, and > how does that relate to the behavior proposed for ?::marker? in some draft? I don't understand the question. However, the default visual behavior of <details> is suggested in the HTML spec. >> 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. > > I know that many CSS property names are misleading. But list-style-type, as > defined in published CSS recommendations, isn?t bound to any ?::marker?. It certainly is, in the Lists spec. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 12:56:13 UTC