- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 11:04:26 -0700
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 9, 2011, at 9:34 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:39 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>>> Why are they inline-blocks instead of inlines? That does not make
>>> much sense to me.
>>
>> I think I just made the choice fairly arbitrarily. You can't tell the
>> difference currently, because you can't make a marker that would
>> line-wrap.
>
> This statement surprises me a lot. Why wouldn't it wrap if I had this:
>
> ::marker { display: inline-block /* or block or table-cell */; width: 2em; } /* assume spaces in marker text, or else 'word-break: break-all' or that breaking after decimals is part of 'word-break: normal' */
I was referring to current markers, which are limited to unwrappable
strings or images. Using ::marker or a custom counter-style
definitely changes things.
>> I don't see too much wrong with making them inlines. They'll still
>> act properly when positioned with 'outside', so sure.
>
> Cool. That is less magic than having 'position' also change the initial 'display' value, right? (floats are magic in that regard).
Yes. (Also, wow, I never realized that 'float' changes the initial
value for 'display'. That's wack.)
~TJ
Received on Thursday, 9 June 2011 18:05:13 UTC