Re: colours for bullets - this one is simple, works, & addresses

Carl Morris (msftrncs@htcnet.com)
Tue, 15 Apr 1997 15:29:57 -0500


Message-Id: <199704152032.PAA05184@inet.htcnet.com>
From: "Carl Morris" <msftrncs@htcnet.com>
To: "WWW HTML List" <www-html@w3.org>
Subject: Re: colours for bullets - this one is simple, works, & addresses
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 15:29:57 -0500

>Two things.  I think it'd be good to explicitly allow it for tables with
>align=left or align=right (or apropriate CSS properties).  But I'm
>against doing this in general as it is a confusion between the structure
>of the document and the rendered output using a style sheet.  For
>example:
>
><P>Now is the time to look at a list:
><OL>
><LI>Item 1
><LI>Item 2
></OL>
>More text
>
>Should result in a P, an OL then an implied paragraph to hold "More
>text",  otherwise you start requiring </P> which isn't backward
>compatible with the way HTML is used.  That is,  the </P> is needed to
>distinguish when <OL> is or is not part of the paragraph.

I don't know what all the fuss is, but I clearly read that the above code
must via the DTD be converted to:

<P>Now is the time to look at a list:
</P><OL>
<LI>Item 1
</LI><LI>Item 2
</LI></OL>
More text


The "more text" part becomes <BODY> text, as defined by the spec...  am I
correct?  If so, whats wrong with that.  There has got to be some rules. 
Already there is too much relaxation in HTML.  For example the semicolon
that ends an enity is optional, but shouldn't have been!

I continue to urge Microsoft and Netscape to properly close tags such as
<P>.  For examples, take look at:

http://199.120.83.179/~moreese/msiebugs/index.html

(if url wrong, start back at the root, the server is only up for 8 hours a
day from 4pm CDT).

Its under the formatting bugs section.  Because of the allowance of an <HR>
in <P>, MSIE's formatting is screwed up.  I consider this a bug and will
fight it to it or my end... :)