Current votes: None.
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Jukka K. Korpela <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrot= e: > Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > >> <details> is definitely something we want to make fully >> author-stylable. > > I don=E2=80=99t. Who=E2=80=99s this =E2=80=9Dwe=E2=80=9D you are talking = about, and why do they want to make > <details> author-stylable even before a single browser has _any_ support = to > the element, at the functional level? "We" being, I suspect, the browser community. If that's overreaching, then I'm content to say that *I* want it to be fully author-stylable, but I believe Moz feels similarly (Tantek is working on making the form controls more author-stylable). >>> Why should we use list-style-type for something that clearly ain=E2=80= =99t >>> no list? >> >> Because it appears that the disclosure triangle wants to have the same >> behavior that ::marker does. > > Does it? Why do you imply the visual concept of a =E2=80=9Ddisclosure tri= angle=E2=80=9D, and > how does that relate to the behavior proposed for =E2=80=9D::marker=E2=80= =9D in some draft? I don't understand the question. However, the default visual behavior of <details> is suggested in the HTML spec. >> Don't be misled by the name - all that >> list-style-type does is help construct the default value for 'content' >> on ::marker. =C2=A0It has nothing to do with things that are semanticall= y >> lists, per se. > > I know that many CSS property names are misleading. But list-style-type, = as > defined in published CSS recommendations, isn=E2=80=99t bound to any =E2= =80=9D::marker=E2=80=9D. It certainly is, in the Lists spec. ~TJ