Re: [css3-lists] Published as WD!

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Øyvind Stenhaug <> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 02:28:37 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. <>
> wrote:
>> 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?

The interop was just that everyone placed markers on a particular side
based on the list item's directionality.  It was purely an interop
judgement, unrelated to compat.

I'd be extremely happy for someone to review the actual compat impact
of doing so.  I doubt there's much of a problem, given the way
marker-attachment:list-container works (I suspect it actually fixes
some lists in the wild that currently have some of their bullets cut
off), but if there is I can just remove the line from the UA

> 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.

Ah, you're right!  The root can certainly be a list-item (it was only
undefined in 2.1 for interop reasons), and then it doesn't have a
parent.  I'll adjust the algorithm accordingly.


Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2011 14:40:07 UTC