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: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 09:10:14 +0100
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <6ae1ef3c-fab5-3a0f-c905-c8220cc2c4e3@disruptive-innovations.com>
On 09/03/2016 02:09, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> "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.

I don't think deprecating is an option at all. But, to reuse your own
words and strong emphasis, we *manifestly* did not do things right when
we chose list-* names and your proposal is to stick with it.

We already have aliases for many property values (angles, color names,
positions, etc.) because they increase human readability of the
specified value and then maintenance of the stylesheet. In full theory,
they're bloat and not needed. In practice, they improve CSS's industrial
stability. That's the same here.

> Aliasing because "sometimes it's more like this" just invites *more*
> confusion, as people now have *two* names to refer to everything.
> This gets *way* worse when there's a whole connected set of names
> being aliased - it's really confusing if you can set "display:
> block-with-marker; list-style-position: inside; marker-type: square;"
> *and have it actually work together*.

No. Here, the aliasing would be explicitely made to decrease the
confusion, and possibly decorelate in the future list-item and has-a
marker behaviours if we need it. And I'm pretty sure we'll need it
at some point.

</Daniel>
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2016 08:10:41 UTC

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