- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 00:20:11 +0300
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > 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. Thank you for the clarification. I would prefer seeing _one_ decent implementatiom of <details> before considering any fine tuning. > If that's overreaching, > then I'm content to say that *I* want it to be fully author-stylable, The primary question, as I see it, is to get decent implementations in the first place. I don?t see crowds of authors yelling for author-stylability. >> 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. Why does <details> need to have any ?disclosure triangle?? > However, the default visual behavior > of <details> is suggested in the HTML spec. You misspelled ?the current HTML(5) draft/sketch?. And I would not take it as more than a suggestion in a work in progress, which is what it really is. >> 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. Please cite the recommendation by its official name and/or URL. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 14:20:11 UTC