Re: [css3-lists] Published as WD!

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 02:28:37 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. <>  

> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:36 PM, fantasai  
> <> wrote:

> Ah, thank you!  I knew I was missing something, because I thought I
> remembered something along those lines when you mentioned it.
> Okay, I'll change things so that Lists agrees with 2.1.  I'll also add
> a property that controls the attachment (with the initial value
> matching 2.1's behavior), make position:marker consult that property
> when deciding where to position things, and set that property
> appropriately (to the desired all-on-the-same-side behavior) on
> <ol>/<ul> in the recommended default stylesheet.

Just wondering, was the "strong interop" rationale mentioned in the  
resolution of issue 162 related to compatibility with existing content?  
And if so, why would interop w.r.t. the UA stylesheet be significantly  
less of a concern than interop w.r.t. the initial value?

By the way, it seems you are (and have been, I believe) assuming that  
every list-item element has a parent. Whether this can be guaranteed is  
undefined in CSS 2.1, and I don't see it addressed in the css3-lists draft.

Øyvind Stenhaug
Core Norway, Opera Software ASA

Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2011 09:23:55 UTC