- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 17:51:15 +0300
Lachlan Hunt wrote: > We would like our > implementations to be compatible as far as author styling is > concerned, and so it is very useful to discuss the fine-tuning of CSS > styling before we ship. If we did not do this, then you and every > other author would most certainly complain when Opera and Chrome ship > incompatible implementations that require vastly different approaches > to styling. No, I would not, and when authors start using <details>, their first concern is, or should be, whether users will recognize the element's rendering as something that provides optional access to detailed information. This usability issue is crucial and should be tested widely, and we need _different_ implementations in order to be able to evaluate different approaches. > Authors have been yelling for author-styling in relation to many other > elements in the past. Authors yell a lot. You should care more about usability and other aspects of good design than the sounds of authors who are eager to author-style everything. You can't please everyone. >> Why does <details> need to have any ?disclosure triangle?? > > The default appearance needs a disclosure widget of some kind, either > a triangle or plus symbol or whatever. It needs to convey the message of optional availability of additional information and an intuitive way of taking the option. It is far from clear how this could best be achieved. As I wrote, we would need to see some implementations before worrying about how to describe them in CSS terms. When (or if) some reasonable implementation approaches will be found, they will most probably need some new features added to CSS. >>>> 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. > > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-lists/#marker-pseudoelement The document says: "This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress." (Markers were in CSS 2.0, and they were dropped out in CSS 2.1. I'm not very optimistic about seeing them well designed and implemented anytime soon.) -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Saturday, 9 April 2011 07:51:15 UTC