- From: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 04:53:03 -0800 (PST)
- To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
A frequently used list-style is the number in a circle (or less frequently in a rectangle). There are various ways of doing this: list-style-type: encircled-lower-roman (etc.) enrectangled-lower-alpha (etc.) Or LI:before {display: marker; content: counters(counterfunction, decimal) "."; width: 2em; /* Because of the '.' */ height: 1em; clip: oval(50%, 50%, 50%, 0%); /* See footnote */ clip-border: thin solid;} The advantage of the second option is that it offers enormous flexibility. Footnotes: 1. This is a minor amendment to my proposed clip syntax (recall - clip: oval(Xcentre, Ycentre, Xtopcorner, Ytopcorner, Xleftcorner, Yleftcorner), namely that if the left 'corner' is omitted, it is of equal radius and is thus perpendicular to the line going thru the top corner, centre and bottom corner, so the example here draws a circle. 2. Note that this syntax for clip: oval (or the one above) is my preferred option. 3. It seems that SVG is something of a sledgehammer to crack this particular nut. 4. All known (to me anyway) UAs do: OL {list-style-type: decimal} 1. 2. 3. Where as the css spec states that: 1 2 3 is correct. It strikes me that the former option is better, if technically buggy but that it is unacceptable when using counter functions (e.g., content: "(" counter(counterfunction, decimal) ")"). So I would propose that the CSS spec should be amended to state that 1., 2. is acceptable (and indeed expected and desirable by authors) with list-style-type but not when the style is used with content: ===== ---------------------------------------------------------- From Matthew Brealey (http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet (for law)or http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet/WEBFRAME.HTM (for CSS)) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 1999 07:53:05 UTC