- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 09:52:00 -0800
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: > On 08/03/2016 17:20, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> There hasn't been a lot of call for "a block with a marker" yet, so I >> wouldn't be surprised if most people haven't built up a functional >> understanding of what display:list-item does; it's pretty reasonable >> for them currently to think of it as "the thing that goes on <li>". >> But there's no reason to presume that it will stay this way, and >> people will have trouble adapting their functional understanding of >> the value. > > What *is* (I can bolden things too) reasonable is to always do what > we have to do the best possible way because when we don't, we OFTEN > IF NOT ALWAYS end up years later with a MUCH larger problem. I am > reacting here because I have more than the gut feeling we're reusing > something in a suboptimal manner. Patrick expressed it better than I > could do. > >> (All this presumes that people *will care in the slightest*, which I >> doubt for the most part. We're adjusting the UA stylesheet for a >> rarely-used element, not authoring a new tutorial guide.) > > In short, "people don't care, this is minor, our hack is enough". > This is not really how I see standards' production, and this is not > how I care about our users, web authors. > > Reality is that we should alias the 'list-item' value to 'marked', > have "marker-*" property aliases for 'list-*' properties, and move to > those new values to do things the clean way. We made a bit of a MISTAKE > when we designed the older names, sticking to lists instead of going to > the essential (markers) so it could be reused in the future without > confusion. Please explain how your reasoning does not require us to add aliases for the table-* display values as well. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2016 17:52:47 UTC