- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:00:04 -0700
- To: Axel Dahmen <brille1@hotmail.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Axel Dahmen <brille1@hotmail.com> wrote: > If using ::marker (which I tend to favour myself as well), wouldn't it be > appropriate then to omit the <glyph> entities in favour of a static value > of, say "fixed"? Can't do this, since the <glyph> entities have been around for a long time, and tons of content depends on them. > What if a list-style-type rule defines "circle" and the ::marker defines > something else? I see an ambiguity here. Of course, it could be circumvented > by declaration (e.g. "marker supersedes list-style-type"), but wouldn't it > be cleaner then to leave out the <glyph> values at all? > > What if list-style-type defines any of the <numeric> or <algorithmic> > values? What about ::marker then? ::marker only pays attention to list-style-type when it has content:normal (which is the default). If you explicitly set content to something else, it uses that instead. (As a direct response to your suggestion to omit the <glyph> values of list-style-type, those generally define values that are difficult to input on a standard keyboard, or require knowledge of the exact unicode code point for them. I happen to have a custom keyboard map that allows me to type an ordinary bullet easily, but I can't do the same for the other values.) ~TJ
Received on Saturday, 27 March 2010 00:00:52 UTC