- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 20:08:49 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 08/03/2016 18:52, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > Please explain how your reasoning does not require us to add aliases > for the table-* display values as well. Because that comes from users and not from us? If users abuse something we carefully designed, there is not a lot we can do; and it will always happen. I repeat, always. But when we design stuff suboptimally, we're the guilty ones and that's a mistake. As I said earlier, we remained partly semantic with 'list-item' instead of digging deeper and going to the stylistic roots: what specifies a list-item is a marker, a marker type or image and its position. I was there at that time and I don't remember exactly the discussions. But it made some sense since list items (without -) were the only use case *at that time*. We lacked some forwardthinking, clearly. This the first request to apply it to an element that is not a list item and we have two options: do it the right way acknowledging the fact we were not broad enough when we designed this, or make it a hack and possibly extend that hack in the future. My preference goes to the former, because we'll hit other cases in the future and 'list-item' will make less and less sense. I feel we made a mistake we have to now fix. </Daniel>
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:09:16 UTC