On Mon, 2 May 2011, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 5/2/11 7:26 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > > I think it'd be better for [the rendering of <option>s in a <select> > > being one to a line] to be a style scoped to the binding that defines > > the <select>, personally. > > OK, but more on this below. > > > > I would clearly prefer that the behavior be defined in terms of CSS; > > > UAs that under the hood want to ignore the styles and just do > > > something magic can still do that, of course. > > > > The behaviour is defined in terms of CSS and a hypothetical binding > > language similar to XBL; in theory that should be sufficient for your > > needs, no? > > I don't think so; we need to define at least some details of the > binding. That's what I meant by sites depending on the details. For > example, width calculations for <select> need to work in a particular > way (or rather small range of ways).... > > > If not, I guess we have to work out what we can get browser vendors to > > converge on. I am concerned that this might not end up being exactly > > what you need, though, which would be of no more help to you than the > > status quo, but with more complicated rules. > > That's entirely possible, yes. At the moment we're getting bug reports > because people write their HTML+CSS, test in only WebKit or only IE, and > then it breaks in Gecko. I would assume that there are others who only > test in Gecko and then it breaks in other browsers....
That makes sense. My intent at this point is to continue to define this in terms of abstract bindings. However, that doesn't mean we can't define the constraints that those bindings should work under. If you would like particular constraints specified, e.g. the width of a <select>, please do raise them. Given this model, though, I don't think the initial request (having a UA-level rule for <option> that sets display:block outside the context of a binding) makes sense. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
