Re: Generic LIST Element Proposal

Michael J Hannah (mjhanna@sandia.gov)
Tue, 1 Aug 1995 11:16:28 +0700


Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 11:16:28 +0700
Message-Id: <9508011716.AA06939@sass027.sandia.gov>
From: mjhanna@sandia.gov (Michael J Hannah)
To: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: Generic LIST Element Proposal
Cc: kryee@novice.uwaterloo.ca

Thanks to Ka-Ping Yee for his the suggestion about linking to the
archived message in my proposal document.  I have taken his suggestion
to heart and have inserted those links.  You can now see that I simply
had him attributed to the wrong thread.  I knew his name was associated
with one of the threads, sorry to have put it on the wrong one.

On Mon, 31 Jul 1995 20:14:23 wrote Ka-Ping Yee <kryee@novice.uwaterloo.ca>
++
++ I had a look at this, and i like the concept.  Aiming for simplicity and
++ separation of presentation into style sheets is generally something i
++ agree with.  It's the way i would like things to have been done the first
++ time around, i think -- but then the resistance to removing OL and UL
++ may be so strong that their slight semantic meaning may entrench them in
++ the language.  There will be more resistance due to the added markup for
++ producing numbers, unfortunately.  I've often thought that a good way
++ around this would be for macros to operate in some way -- shortcuts that
++ would let you do things properly in HTML 3.0, with as little typing (or 
++ less) than half-baked HTML 2 and/or NHTML hacks.  Perhaps i'll consider
++ how to do this more formally when i have some time.
++ 
++ The automatic numbering ability is particularly attractive, though i'd
++ look for a way to reference numbers previously used.  (For instance,
++ if you number a figure with <num id="fig">, how can you make "please
++ see Figure 3" appear in the text?  Tricky.  Maybe requires two identifiers?)

As mentioned in the comments about <NUM> concerning my use of ID, I am not
sure that I used it correctly.  If ID is to refer to that single instance
of the markup element, then I have used it incorrectly in my proposal and
need the second attribute I suggested (COUNTER).  With that being the case,
then ID could mark the specific value, and another attribute (similar to
the TO attribute of TAB) could reference.  I would suggest VAL with the
two uses being:
  set the value by:  <NUM ID="gworb" COUNTER="sections">
  reference by:      <NUM COUNTER="sections" VAL="gworb">
and specify that the use of VAL does not modify the value of the counter,
only references it.

Does this do what you are suggesting Ka-Ping Yee?

Michael