I disallow pre in comments because of the potential for abuse, though perhaps I should loosen up on that; in the meantime, I’ve edited your comment as I believe you originally intended to mark it up. As for the rest of your comments on my stylistic choices, they’re my choices and I’m satisfied with them.

Why would anyone ever want to reset inline quotes just so they have to define them all over again? With this CSS reset, you’ll need hundreds of lines of CSS to restore inline quotes functionality back to it’s former state (for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-English_usage_of_quotation_marks). To put this in perspective, the following code only fixes the functionality for English, French, Spanish, and Japanese.

q::before {
    content: open-quote;
}
q::after  {
    content: close-quote;
}
q:lang(en) {
    quotes: "“" "”" "‘" "’";
}
q:lang(fr) {
    quotes: "«" "»";
}
q:lang(fr) {
    quotes: "«" "»";
}
q:lang(es) {
    quotes: "«" "»" "“" "”";
}
q:lang(jp) {
    quotes: "「" "」" "『" "』";
}

Your quotes reset is extremely harmful, and you should remove it.

P.S. It’s nice that you allow <code> tags in comments, but you’re completely forgetting about <pre> tags. It really screws up this comment. Also, what’s up with your #main blockquote p { text-indent: 2em; } CSS rule? You don’t indent p elements, so you shouldn’t be indenting blockquote elements either. Not to mention that there’s nothing that says blockquotes might have content in them that isn’t appropriate to indent.


button {
font:inherit;
text-transform:inherit;
}

It may not be a reset per se, but it does prevent issues with further styling.

Hah, I am a bit at odds with the decision to remove :focus — since I have used that rule to remind me to do something with it in the stylesheet, although now that I finally am in a routine of doing :focus styling and tabbing through my page to make sure something shows I am letting go of that as well. =)

I am looking forward to see what is in store for v2.0 b3 and enjoy reading comments of those who are more advanced in their knowledge and theory of how things get done with HTML and CSS. Thanks for revisiting the reset Eric! =D

/* remember to define visible focus styles! */
:focus {
}

This way, the user *shouldn’t* forget to define a style.

Vidal, not all ordered lists are numerical. Some are alphabetic, in a variety of possible languages, and it’s even possible to put bullets on an ordered list. (You can also apply numbers or letters to an unordered list, but they don’t increment without further intervention.) This reset encourages close thinking about how to mark lists of both varieties. That said, I suspect it’s the rule that is most often removed by people adapting the reset to their own workflow.

bill, it’s an element for marking up CJK phonetic content; here’s a good introductory explanation from the HTML5 Doctor crew. Not sure exactly why that rates a “WTF”, though.

If not, you’d just be deleting the rule by default, or rebuild them using your own styles anyway.

If you want a custom list style, then you set that list style either for your specific list or globally using the ul/ol selectors, somewhat like the :focus and the ins/del selectors.

Unless you want to reset those to nothing so as to remove the nesting dots differences.

Here’s a demo (currently works in Opera only)…
http://html5.org/demos/dev.opera.com/article-examples.html

I basically left text-decoration alone in this reset; reset and del were the exceptions.

I think you meant ins here.

I really like what you’ve done with this. Thanks Eric. (Am I the only one who thinks the mark tag was an Easter Egg for Mark Pilgrim?)

However, now that you explain your rationale for the changes regarding them, I wholeheartedly agree.