- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 15:35:43 -0800
- To: "Belov, Charles" <Charles.Belov@sfmta.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Belov, Charles <Charles.Belov@sfmta.com> wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] wrote on Monday, February 07, 2011 1:04 PM >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Belov, Charles >> <Charles.Belov@sfmta.com> wrote: >> > There doesn't seem to be anything explicit in either the CSS3 lists >> > draft (1) or the CSS3 Speech draft (2) as to whether setting >> > list-style-type to other than normal affects the spoken >> rendering of >> > the list item marker. I am requesting that this be made >> explicit in >> > one document or the other, probably in CSS3 Speech. >> >> Is this a generic issue surrounding generated content, or is >> it specific just to list markers? >> >> If it's specific just to list markers, I recommend Speech >> specifying that the list-style-type is ignored and list >> markers read in some standard way. The new Lists spec I'm >> drafting will allow, for example, images to be used for list >> counters, which can't be spoken anyway. > > My understanding of generated content is not comprehensive. > My understanding of :before and :after is that text > content would be spoken as is and graphic content would > not. I think the difference is that content of list > markers is well-defined in the specification, while > :before and :after content is completely arbitrary > with respect to the specification. I realize > improvements to list markers discussed on this list would > allow arbitrary list markers, so that does muddy things. Yeah, you'll be able to say something like: @counter-style dice { type: alphabetic; range: 1 infinity; glyphs: url(die1), url(die2), url(die3), url(die4), url(die5), url(die6); } ol { list-style-type: dice; } ...and get all your <ol>s displayed with dice-based graphics, so (7) would be two dice showing a 6 and 1, etc. >> > But in the case of a public meeting, where we have a >> legally published >> > agenda, and items are called by the chair by letter, it would be >> > important to me that the rendered speech be: >> > >> > A. First item >> > B. Second item >> > C. Third item >> > >> > and I would definitely *not* want to leave this decision to >> the user >> > agent. >> >> This is an important case for more than just Speech. In >> general, sometimes the list marker is important content and >> shouldn't be CSS-controlled. >> >> To solve this, I'm going to propose an 'inline' value for >> list-style-type and a 'marker' value for display, which lets >> you write the marker directly in the content, mark it as a >> marker, then display it like a list item marker. In this >> case, Speech should indeed read the actual content of the marker. >> >> This proposal will show up in the draft sometime this week as >> I finish out my first draft. > > Thank you. Your solution is probably necessary. I'm not sure > whether it is, from a content maintainer's perspective, sufficient. > > There would be a maintenance issue that most staff copies content > in from Word and won't want to spend time adding this markup > manually (and if they are using Adobe Contribute or some other > WYSIWYG-only program), they won't be able to add it). > > It is relatively simple to tell a user agent to number a list > A, B, C, etc. -- there is the AA, BB, CC, issue I reported > that you came up with a solution for, but that's a separate issue > -- but then we would still need a way to tell CSS3 Speech to read it > A, B, C, etc. That is the kind of low-maintenance at the content > maintainer's end which I was hoping for. Copypasting from Word would be fine, as it would just put the list markers directly into the content. That's fine - it accomplishes the same thing, and would be read out appropriately by a screenreader. Using list-style-type:inline and display:marker is just for if you want the full power of styling list markers *and* have the markers be part of the content. If your use isn't sophisticated, you don't have to worry about it. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 7 February 2011 23:36:36 UTC