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: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:18:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCVJ0+x0rJZi2K6O_cOb26+kLg+Js2ODpb7SXYb0SL8Uw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ting-Yu Lin <tlin@mozilla.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:45 PM, Ting-Yu Lin <tlin@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:16 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
> wrote:
>> On 04/21/2016 09:24 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> Full alternate proposal:
>>
>>   * 'display: list-item' does not magically set a 'list-item'
>>     counter-increment; this is handled by the HTML UA style sheet
>>
>>   * 'list-style-*' apply to ::marker, not to list item elements;
>>     since they inherit setting them on the list item will continue
>>     to work as expected
>>
>> This proposal has two advantages:
>>   * avoids the creation of a universal ::marker element
>>   * maintains application of 'list-style' properties to styling
>>     markers, for which these properties are very useful and usable.
>
> I feel this proposal is easier to implement. For Firefox, we'll need to
> convert the built-in magic counter to use css counter and use the
> counter for <ol> in UA style sheet.

This does have the potential for compat problems - if <ol> numbering
switches to being handled by a "counter-increment: list-item 1;" on
<li> in the UA stylesheet, then it will be overridden by author-level
'counter-increment'.  I suspect the compat impact is *low*, but it's
not zero.

I definitely agree that it's *easier*, tho, and I'm happy with it if
we're willing to accept the chance of compat impact.

I'm also fine with just doing the second part (which should have
*zero* impact) and leaving the counter-increment hack in HTML, tho
that's obviously less good.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2016 17:18:52 UTC

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