- 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