- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 17:58:01 -0700
- To: "Belov, Charles" <Charles.Belov@sfmta.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Belov, Charles <Charles.Belov@sfmta.com> wrote: >> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote on Wednesday, September 08, 2010 4:48 PM >> Yes, they're space delimited. Right now I'm thinking that >> you can just supply the character(s) directly if they fit >> certain rules (probably just "whatever makes an ident, and >> also numbers"), and you can use strings instead if you want >> anything outside of that. >> However, I might just say you always have to use strings, for >> simplicity. I can go either way based on what implementors prefer. > > I assume by implementors you mean the folks that build browsers. > As long as I have the flexibility to specify a longer string, I'm > pretty flexible as to how you implement it. Yes, that's what I mean. And yeah, you'll be able to specify longer strings, so it's good that you'll be happy. >> > As well as "prefix" which would allow for: >> > >> > prefix: "("; >> > suffix: ")."; >> > >> > This is just an example for illustration -- I can think of >> marketing >> > uses, but those aren't usually composed in HTML -- but there may be >> > legitimate use cases for multi-character glyphs, such as Hebrew >> > numbering. >> >> Oh, yeah, forgot to mention the prefix property. Yeah, I'm >> throwing that in there precisely for the use-case you're pointing out: >> >> @list paren-decimal { >> type: numeric; >> glyphs: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; >> prefix: "("; >> suffix: ") "; >> } > > Was that trailing space supposed to be in there? Why would ") " > take a trailing space and "." not? Brain fart, actually. I for some reason thought that I needed the extra space there to ensure that there was a proper separation between the marker and the content. But that space is always there anyway, even with a list-style-position:inside list-style-image. So no, the space shouldn't have been there. >> Which will produce: >> >> (1) The first item! >> (2) The second item! >> (3) The third item! >> >> >> "string" - Just use the provided string as the marker for >> all values. >> >> (This allows you to specify arbitrary characters as bullets for >> >> unordered lists, which has been requested by authors.) >> > >> > This presents potential issues for screen-reader software. >> >> How so? > > The character needs to have a pronunciation. Of course, that may be > an issue with other list types as well, now that I think of it. > > This might only be an actual issue were the Webdings, Windings or > Zapf Dingbats fonts to be used, as they get read as the a-z character > they stand in position for. Now that I'm thinking about it, that's > probably not a glyph issue, but a font issue (and thus doesn't apply > to [css3-lists] discussions. Screen readers shouldn't be reading the display of the list-item, but rather the actual number. (Even in a <ul>, I'd like to hear them numbered if I was listening to them. We refer a lot to "the third bullet point" and such, after all.) >> >> non-repeating - Use the provided glyphs in order. Don't >> synthesize >> >> new markers when you run out, just fallback to whatever >> the fallback >> >> list-type is. >> > >> > What about repeating? Binary would go "0 1 0 1 0 1". >> >> Is there any real need for repeating? It's an easy thing to >> do, but I don't think I've ever seen a repeating list marker >> used in the wild. > > I'm thinking of lists like > > * first item > # second item > * third item > # fourth item > > or > > * first item > # second item > @ third item > * fourth item > > Not saying this is a real-life case, just illustrating. > > Again, this would probably be a marketing use (I'm in our > Marketing unit, so I tend to think about such things) rather > than day-to-day office use. Right, I understand the use, I just haven't seen it in the wild. Has your Marketing unit ever used anything like that, or do you have materials that show a list like that? If there's actual usage I'll throw it in. > While we're talking about this, what about legal numbering? > > 1 > 1.1 > 1.2 > 1.3 > 2 > 2.1 > 2.2 > 2.2.1 > 2.2.2 > > (real-life example is Word Outline numbering) > > infix might be applicable here, except that here it is an infix > between levels, not between characters in a composed string at > the same level. I don't really have a use for infix within the > same list level; that was just trying to be flexible. This is covered by the counters() function, which will grab all the in-scope instances of a particular counter (rather than just the current most-deeply-scoped instance) and mash them together with an infix string. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 9 September 2010 00:58:53 UTC