Current votes: None.
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Jukka K. Korpela <email@example.com> wrot= e: > Lachlan Hunt wrote: >> Regardless of whether or not we agree on a common glyph to use for >> this, =C2=A0we should at least agree on the applicable CSS styles used t= o >> achieve >> the rendering, which is essential so that authors have an easier time >> override them with their own styles. > > It=E2=80=99s far too premature to consider such things. We don=E2=80=99t = know what are the > feasible or optimal renderings of <details> elements. Actually, if you wi= sh > to make them widely understood and used, you _don=E2=80=99t_ want to enco= urage > authors to suggest their idiosyncratic renderings. On the average, a web > author, left alone, creates a much poorer user interface than a person > designing a web browser =E2=80=93 simply because the latter is some kind = of a > professional in such matters. <details> is definitely something we want to make fully author-stylable. >> If we use 'list-style-type', it seems reasonable to at least agree on >> a common list-style-type value. > > Why should we use list-style-type for something that clearly ain=E2=80=99= t no list? Because it appears that the disclosure triangle wants to have the same behavior that ::marker does. Don't be misled by the name - all that list-style-type does is help construct the default value for 'content' on ::marker. It has nothing to do with things that are semantically lists, per se. ~TJ