Re: list-style-type default UL behavior (was Re: CSS3 : font-style)

On Sun, 13 Jun 1999, Tantek Celik wrote:

| I think at first glance the typical UL actually acts like:
| UL { list-style-type: cycle(disk, circle, square); }
|     /* swapped order of square and circle from David's example */

Hm... Don't agree. CSS doesn't standardize the default behavior of a
unordered list. David gives a general behavior of the UL element. Take
Lynx (!) or even some Netscape versions, you won't find the exact behavior
you wrote (which is not, moreover, a proper rendering for everybody - have
personaly some critics about alternating empty and filled elements...).

| 2. Since the default nested list-style-type is fairly useless at a depth of
| four and greater, what do people think if the default nesting
| list-style-type behavior were changed from the above grouping of three UL
| rules, to the following:
| UL { list-style-type: cycle(disk, circle, square, block) }

The same argument. Even if I like this, it would be useless to discuss
about a *default* behavior, at least on this mailing list.

I assume the acceptation of new values for the 'list-style-type' property
depends on what characters the charsets (especially UTF) accept (?).

To keep a 'square' value with indetermined rendering, while adding two new
values is not a good idea. But the problem with 'block' is it sounds like
'filled square' (at least in French) [while 'square' sounds like 'empty
square'... cf 'circle'] ! It's possible yet to redefine their exact
meanings since there are unspecified in the spec... but I would prefer a
simple value such as 'empty-square' all the same.

| This new default rule has the following visual/aesthetic advantages:
| 1. It continues to distinguish nested list items at depths of four and
| greater from their containing list items.

Yes, agree (especially if UL isn't formatted with a 'cycle()' value).
Maybe it's a need of some browsers.

| Perhaps I should phrase the questions a bit a differently - how offended
| would folks be if a user-agent went ahead and implemented this behavior (the
| new value of 'block', and the four value rotating list-style-type)?

Don't see any problem for the 'block' value excepted people should agree
with the word you will use (but it's not very, very important !). For the
rotating system, it depends :

 - if your system is not based on CSS (that's to say if you don't use the
UA default stylesheet to create this system, that's to say without using a
'cycle()' or similar value), be free to implement it

 - but if it is, you could create problems with forward compatibility and
I don't really think that it would be a good idea...

Nicolas Lesbats -
85 r. Carnot 60200 Compiegne - France
 +33/0 686 800 908

Plaider <>

3:-) Moooooooooooooooooooooooo !

Received on Monday, 14 June 1999 10:26:42 UTC