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

Re: [css-pseudo] Need a way to styling the disclosure triangle of the <details> (or <summary>) element

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 14:13:01 +0900
Cc: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3A4566C7-DCDA-4BE8-BED1-09D392F85C7F@rivoal.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

> On Mar 9, 2016, at 10:30, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> There are lots of discussions here around why list-item is fine. Let's
>>>> try
>>>> considering the other side: why do you think adding an alias for them is
>>>> not
>>>> good? If aliasing makes things less confusing for future use, I think it
>>>> should be fine. What would be hurt if we do that?
>>> 
>>> "Why not" isn't a good reason to add things to a language.  Additions
>>> should have a strong justification behind them.  Aliasing should only
>>> be done when the name is *manifestly* wrong or confusing; imo, it
>>> should only be done when we're *deprecating* the previous name as a
>>> mistake.
>> 
>> 
>> Then, could we deprecate the current names and changing them to 'display:
>> marked' and 'marker-type', 'marker-position', etc? These names do seem to
>> make more sense than the current ones, and make it clearer about their
>> relationship with the '::marker' pseudo-element.
> 
> We don't typically deprecate very widely-used names, unless they're a
> *huge* mistake.

I think the names suggested by Xidorn would have been better had we picked
them initially, for the reasons explained by Xidorn and Glazou. However,
I don't think deprecating the list based names at this point is realistic,
so even though the current names aren't great, as far as I am concerned
we're stuck with them, and I think we should move on.

 - Florian
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2016 05:13:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:01 UTC