- From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:05:09 +0100
- To: www-international@w3.org
At 19:58 13/02/2009, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >(...) >The fact is that the list-style-types have sofar almost only been >used in lists. As user agent gets better support for generated >content and so one, one will be wanting to use it for more things. >(...) >The Amaya editor can renumber HTML headers, by directly inserting >numbers as text into each header. Another way is to use CSS via >generated content. The latter method is definitely a way that is >being promoted for this usecase. But I also like the Amaya method. >At least this shows that it is not very obvious whether the >enumeration should belong to CSS or HTML. Is it really a good idea to generate heading numbers through CSS? It's very convenient for authors, but heading numbers are not really a styling aspect (as opposed to content). As far as I know, screen readers don't pick up heading numbers generated through CSS. (This is not surprising: CSS 2.1 says: "Generated content does not alter the document tree. In particular, it is not fed back to the document language processor (e.g., for reparsing)." <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/generate.html#content>. The CSS 2.0 spec said the same thing, at <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/generate.html#content>. Of course, the fact that IE 5 through 7 didn't/don't support generated content with counter increments [<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc351024(VS.85).aspx#generated>] didn't help either, because IE is what most screen reader users use.) Best regards, Christophe Strobbe -- Christophe Strobbe K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD Research Group on Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442 B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee BELGIUM tel: +32 16 32 85 51 http://www.docarch.be/ --- Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other "social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but I haven't. Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 11:05:48 UTC