|
|
Posted by dorayme on 02/02/07 02:54
In article <HrCdnTZwR7eIA1_YnZ2dnUVZ_sGqnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <g%uwh.1898$fS2.53@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>,
> > "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
> >
> >> The best workaround is to put the numbers into the item contents and to
> >> use
> >> <ul> without bullets.
> >
> > Indeed, it looks a reasonable solution.
> >
> >> (<ul> is illogical,...
> >
> > Whether it is quite illogical or not depends on the details of
> > how to interpret the notion of ol and ul. How to interpret the
> > use of it in any particular context. I say it is not a simple
> > matter.
.....
> > I will stop babbling now, but I don't think your suggestion is so
> > clearly illogical. We would need to know more about the context
> > in which the OP is using it.
>
> Fascinating, and hardly babbling. Frankly, I've never understood the
> concepts of HTML "ordered" and "unordered" lists. Who the heck thought
> that up? I think the presumptions you cited are silly, although the
> logic is impeccable considering the standard.
>
Not quite understanding you re the presumptions?
> I prefer to think of them as "numbered" and "un-numbered." In business
> communications, certainly, part of the success of a presentation is the
> content and part is the appearance. Order is important whether the list
> is numbered or not. I most definitely DO care how each point flows into
> the next regardless of annotation style. I prefer bullets rather than
> numbers as a presentation style in most cases (and most business
> presentations are done that way), unless there is a need later in a
> document to refer upwards as in: "Referring to number 6 above ..."
>
Part of the idea of the distinction in the html is not to do with
style, imagine css turned off or even better, no list markers to
show. There would then, in the clearest and best uses of either,
be a distinction being conveyed about order (see my previous
examples of extremes, the algorithm versus the shopping list
under simple and realistic assumptions)
> And, BTW, I've just added "dorayme" to my SeaMonkey dictionary as the
> spell checker keeps suggesting that I change it to "deodorant." I just
> couldn't stand the indignity anymore. I will say that one of the other
> options in the list was "adorable." That's not bad! ;-)
Blush! I have occasionally wondered about befriending a sea
monkey (as a last resort, if all else were to fail). Now I know
it will not rebuff me straight away...
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|