- From: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:35:40 +1000
- To: W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 04:28:07PM -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2 June 2010 14:12, Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com> wrote: > > But wouldn't it be very counterintuitive to have <li dir=rtl> mean > > something different than <li><span dir=rtl> ? > > > > As an uninformed author (i.e., one that is not following this list > > closely), I find it very surprising that I'll have to use a child > > element when I can set the direction in the list item. > > I find it relatively clear. The ::marker is a child of the <li>, so > @dir on the <li> affects it, but @dir on a child of the <li> doesn't. (Incidentally, CSS2.1 has no mention of ::marker, and I'm not aware of text in CSS2.1 indicating that the marker is a child of <li> when 'list-style-position' has its initial value of 'outside'. However, CSS2.1 does make clear that the <li> generates the marker box, which gives much the same argument as to surprisingness.) While I agree it's understandable why it renders that way once you've noticed it rendering that way, I also agree that an author may well not expect that consequence of having unequal 'direction' values among list-items of what the author considers to be one list. Some other relevant points: - What the author considers to be one list may be affected by counter scope rather than containing block. It may be rare that this makes a difference, but it does mean that the proposed change only makes a rare problem problem rarer rather than eliminating the problem. - Having marker position be determined by the list-item's 'direction' rather than "the list"'s 'direction' is at least consistent with list-style-type behaviour. (Though I'm not saying that this would make it unreasonable for these two to be inconsistent.) pjrm.
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2010 07:36:11 UTC