W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Restructuring the Ordered List

From: Ernest Cline <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:31:53 -0500
Message-ID: <410-22004342518315331@mindspring.com>
To: "J. King" <mtknight@dark-phantasy.com>, "www-html" <www-html@w3.org>




> [Original Message]
> From: J. King <mtknight@dark-phantasy.com>
>
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:51:57 +1100, Lachlan Hunt  
> <lachlan.hunt@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> >    One problem with start is that if an item is inserted in a previous  
> > list, then the value of the start attribute would need to be updated.
> >
> >    What may be needed is a way to link the lists together semantically.

> >   Perhaps a boolean continue attribute that means this lists continues  
> > the previous list, or (probably better) an attribute with an ID REF,  
> > referencing a previous list.
>
> Yes, an ID REF would seem to be the most flexible option.  Then you'd  
> probably have a little fun with someone referencing an ID that appears  
> after the list in question, though.

No the real fun would come from:

<ol id="one-hand" continues="other-hand" />
<ol id="other-hand" continues="one-hand" />

which is why for simplicity's sake if this idea is ever adopted,
a list should only be able to continue a list that precedes
it in the document.

> >    Hmm, maybe, though I don't believe it is semantically important  
> > whether the list is presented as a count-up or count-down list, but I'm

> > sure this is debatable.
>
> I would argue that it is.  Often the "latest" entry in a list is of most  
> interest to a reader, even in an unstyled environment.  Incremental  
> rendering of backwards lists would no doubt be impossible, though.

Not if either an end value or list size were included as an attribute for
the list.  Without such attributes you are correct; incremental rendering
of a reverse order list that would count down to 1 would be impossible.
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2004 13:31:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:20:08 UTC