- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 12:54:34 -0700
- To: Philippe Verdy <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:41 AM, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr> wrote: > The suggested default stylesheet for defining the padding gutter needed to > display ordered or unnumbered list is currently this: > > ol:dir(ltr), ul:dir(ltr) { > padding-left: 40px; > } > ol:dir(rtl), ul:dir(rtl) { > padding-right: 40px; > } > > This is really bad as it uses a static size that does not work with all font > sizes (this value is only valid if the document's default font size is about > 13 pixels, producing a correct "3em" padding. But it will break immediately > when numbered lists are displayed with much larger fonts (this padding will > be insufficient, the marker will be partly truncated (on the left-side if > the resolved direction of the ul or ol element is LTR) or not displayed at > all, even if its size (for example a bullet) is a standard character > inheriting the current font size of <ul> and <ol> lists. I agree that it's bad, but it matches what browsers actually do. This has been stable for such a long time that changing it would almost certainly break pages. > Why not definining these default padding values to "3em" ? (letting authors > increasing it if they need markers not reduced to a single static character > such as a bullet, for example in numbered lists where "3em" could be > insufficient to display "123." in a long numbered list). If we were to change it, we would make it 2.5em, as the common default text size is 16px, and 2.5*16=40. > Also is there a way to have this padding computed according to the maximum > display width of all markers in the same list (the most direct ul or ol > parent element containing the list item for which markers will be > displayed), plus the marker relative position from the list-item border box, > plus an additional offset? There is not. What use-case are you envisioning this for? I imagine it might be a little weird to have the indent vary shrink when there's less content in the list. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 15 May 2015 19:55:21 UTC