W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2016

Re: [css-lists][html] <summary> and ::marker

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 10:02:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDC42kXwmog8xhakhrxhbaM86djGKd=voAyjhpYps79q1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is the problem we're trying to solve "how to make summary use ::marker"? Why not just let it use ::before, or use shadow Dom?

It shouldn't use ::before because ::before is generally reserved
entirely for author usage.  We don't use it for anything built-in
anywhere else in the platform, and I believe that's a useful invariant
to maintain.  The list marker, on the other hand, is already used by
the platform, so it's free for us to mess with.

It can't use Shadow DOM because we want it to be styleable.

>> I like your (Tab's) proposal better. It's easy to understand, easy to use, avoids overloading the semantics implied by "display:list-item". Also, it gives us one more pseudo element to use and abuse for all sorts of effects, which I expect will be very welcome by authors.
> Much as I'd like more pseudo-element boxes, I'd prefer a less hacky way to get multiple ::before boxes, and also multiple  ::after boxes. Something like ::before(3) to create a ::before element that is an adjacent sibling right before the ::before(2), which is in turn  an adjacent sibling right before the ::before(1). And ::before(1) would be the same as ::before as we know it.

This isn't attempting to give people multiple ::before boxes, so I
don't think this tangent is germane to the discussion.

Received on Friday, 22 April 2016 17:03:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:02 UTC