17632 2012-06-28 17:45:46 +0000 CSS: define rendering of <li> elements in terms of CSS (handling start="", reverse="", value="", and <li> elements that aren't children of <ol> elements) 2016-11-28 23:20:46 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG HTML unspecified Other All RESOLVED MOVED http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#css-list-rendering blocked on css improvements P3 normal Unsorted 27185 1 contributor ian annevk bzbarsky ian mike Ms2ger robin silviapfeiffer1 zcorpan contributor oldest_to_newest 69500 0 contributor 2012-06-28 17:45:46 +0000 Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/grouping-content.html Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#the-ol-element Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#the-ol-element Comment: Ordered list numbering needs to be aware of CSS boxes Posted from: 98.110.194.72 by bzbarsky@mit.edu User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:16.0) Gecko/16.0 Firefox/16.0 69501 1 bzbarsky 2012-06-28 17:49:33 +0000 Consider this testcase: <!DOCTYPE html> <ol> <li>One</li> <li style="display: none"></li> <li>Two</li> </ol> This is interoperably numbered "1, 2" in Gecko, Presto, WebKit, Trident. The spec right now says it should be numbered "1, 3" as far as I can tell. 69504 2 bzbarsky 2012-06-28 17:56:56 +0000 Oh, and how should this affect <ol reversed> numbering? 70987 3 contributor 2012-07-18 17:52:23 +0000 This bug was cloned to create bug 18260 as part of operation convergence. 72718 4 ian 2012-08-24 19:05:45 +0000 See my comment in bug 17633. Not sure what to do here. (The ordinal value of the third <li> here is definitely 3. The question is a little more interesting if the second is <li hidden> rather than <li style>, but even then I'd argue it's still 3. But I am fine with the ordinal value not matching the rendering in CSS-based UAs, if CSS can define the rendering. Back when I was speccing CSS3 Lists and Generated Content, I think I'd come up with a way of defining <li> in terms of counters, but I don't know if that went anywhere.) 77462 5 ian 2012-10-30 22:23:28 +0000 I think we should do this by defining the rendering of <li> entirely in terms of CSS, but that means this is blocked on CSS improvements. I've added a note to the spec saying that this is not yet defined, in the meantime. 77463 6 contributor 2012-10-30 22:24:10 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r7491. Check-in comment: Add a note saying that CSS list rendering is not yet defined. http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=7490&to=7491 77465 7 ian 2012-10-30 22:25:22 +0000 *** Bug 17633 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 78813 8 bzbarsky 2012-11-26 05:09:44 +0000 Unfortunately, <ol reversed> uses the ordinal values, not anything to do with CSS, right? So I believe that for the testcase in comment 1 with @reversed thrown in the spec simply doesn't match implementation reality right now... Not sure how much that matters, since no one is using @reversed in practice yet. 78865 9 ian 2012-11-26 20:49:29 +0000 bz: Right, but that's only because CSS can't define that yet (the improvements mentioned in comment 5). 79875 10 ian 2012-12-10 23:10:37 +0000 Marking this REMIND for now; I'll reopen in a few months to investigate what the story is with CSS' side of this. In the meantime, I recommend trying to get the CSS WG to make lists be able to handle this markup natively. :-) 125532 11 annevk 2016-03-16 14:33:26 +0000 *** Bug 24645 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 125536 12 annevk 2016-03-16 16:33:26 +0000 According to Tab Atkins this should be mostly possible using 'counter-set'. He suggests that for "reversed" HTML introduces a new internal value for 'counter-reset'. 128260 13 zcorpan 2016-11-28 23:20:46 +0000 https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/1916 https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/2002 This seems mostly addressed, except HTML's rules still can't be expressed in CSS concepts. That seems unlikely to change in the near future AIUI. If there is interest in that or if there are still issues, please file new ones in GitHub.