- From: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:40:26 +0000
- To: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tuesday, September 07, 2010 8:15 PM Peter Moulder wrote: > On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 10:31:44PM -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > On 9/7/10 5:28 PM, Peter Moulder wrote: > > > > > Gecko doesn't display marker box for root list-item; I haven't yet > > > determined whether this is a display issue or it's being forced to > > > be display:block. > > > > The latter. This seems to be what > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-CSS21-20030915/visuren.html#display- > prop > > (and earlier drafts) called for. > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-CSS21-20040225/visuren.html#display- > prop > > is the first draft with the current verbiage, which treats the root > > the same way positioned and floated boxes are treated.... > > > > I'll get a bug filed on this. > > OOC, why was this changed? Not being familiar with the weird and > wonderful ways in which authors use CSS, I'd have thought it not a > particularly important use case in CSS2.1, and I wouldn't mind if the spec > marked it as undefined whether root list-item becomes block or stays list- > item. > > One reason that root list-item displeases me is that it means that the box > tree isn't actually a tree at all, but a forest. Not a huge deal, but it > nevertheless seems like more cost than the uses I can see for root list-items > (beyond what can be achieved with :before and/or a non-root list-item). > Thank you for your feedback. The CSSWG has addressed your concerns in the upcoming publication of the CSS 2.1 specification[1]. The CSSWG resolved to explicitly make list-item on the root element undefined. We hope this closes your issue. Please respond before 18 March, 2011 if you do not accept the current resolution. [1] http://w3.org/TR/CSS
Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 21:41:00 UTC