- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 10:23:53 -0800
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 12:19 AM, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: > On 03/03/2016 21:01, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>> The behavior is a convenience feature for selecting a list item's contents. >> >> Interesting. > > Sorry I am stepping in late. The above is correct, it's a feature many > users are used to, coming from wysiwyg text processors. Interesting, I was not aware that existed in text editors. > All browsers > also select the item when the marker is double-clicked. No, they don't. At least in Chrome, double-clicking the marker selects *the first word in the list item*, which is just the normal behavior when you double-click somewhere that isn't a word. Set the <li> to display:block and click in the same area, you'll get the same behavior; it's not tied to the marker at all. > One reason Gecko added the one-click behaviour eons ago to the marker > was the editor where double-click is used to open element properties, > in our case list properties. Which editor? Does this still exist? This certainly isn't the behavior of the Inspector today. > It also seems that none of Gecko, WebKit and Blink correctly applies > 'display: list-item; list-style-type: square' to an element that is not > a li, dt or dd. No, it works perfectly fine. Are you accidentally hiding the bullet off-screen? Switch to list-style-position:inside or add some padding/margin so it has space to display. > Gecko even seems to apply it only to li/dt/dd elements > inside a ul/ol/dl. I haven't checked in the code itself yet. I suspect this is the same thing. >>> I don't think this issue is a CSS spec problem. However, it does highlight >>> the fact that this feature -- the disclosure widget -- is being shoehorned >>> into another feature -- list counters -- that clearly wasn't designed for >>> this purpose. >> >> Other way around - this is a list-related feature (highlighting the >> contents of the element when you click the bullet) being shoehorned >> into a CSS feature (the "display:list-item" value) that isn't >> restricted to lists. >> >> This is identical to automatically putting table-sorting functionality >> on anything that specified display:table, which would be obviously >> silly. The Firefox behavior should be limited to the <li> element, >> which is semantically a list item (if it's kept at all). > > I agree with Patrick. Even if the two features (list-item and has-a- > disclosure-marker) look similar, they are not. When one sets 'display: > table' on a non-table element, the expected rendition is a table. Here, > the stylesheet author is going to set 'display: list-item' for a > rendition that is not a list item. I strongly disagree with either of these sentences; I"ll let you choose which. A horizontal navbar is *not* a table, by any stretch of the imagination. It's a horizontal arrangement of boxes. display:table happens to achieve that, and luckily also has some nice size-balancing behavior. Or, if you want to say that a horizontal navbar *is* a table, then the summary element is exaclty as much a list item. It's a block element with a bullet, exactly like a list item. You can't have it both ways. Either 'display' is non-semantic and its values get used for all sorts of things unrelated to the original naming, or 'display' is semantic *but* the "semantics" are way wider than one would naively believe. The first way allows <summary> to use display:list-item. The second way condemns people using display:table for navbars. >It's unfortunate but words convey > semantics. And we still have the issues highlighted above: restrictions > to 'display: list-item' in current engines that could have a side effect > on existing web pages if lifted, click and double-click behaviour. Aside from maybe the Firefox highlighting behavior (which should be done based on tagname, not style, the current behavior is just a layering violation), there's no restrictions on behavior here. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 7 March 2016 18:24:41 UTC