W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2001

Re: Tree presented lists (was: Suggestion)

From: Daniel Hiester <alatus@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 22:45:43 -0700
Message-ID: <00c001c110df$37d8efc0$bb93b2d1@sol>
To: "www-style" <www-style@w3.org>
Borris Zbarski said:

"Furthermore, you seem to be completely ignoring non-visual
useragents unless you meant to provide stylesheets for all media with
every page that has a list."

I forgot about non-visual useragents. I admit I do not know how non-visual
UA's work. If I had to guess, though, a non-visual UA could parse the
list-style-type property, to decide if it needs to read numbers or not. My
question, as I said in my seperate response to the www-html forum, is why do
we need seperate list elements? Are we creating an insufficiently clear
description of the structure if we merely have an element that represents
"list?" I suggested using an already-existing list element for use as a
generic list element, to permit backward compatibility, and using
stylesheets to completely control the presentation of the list.

However, this has really drawn the style forum away from the question I
really wanted to ask to the style experts.

How pheasable is it to permit a style property like this:

.example { list-style-type: tree }

And then any list elements that use the "example" class displays the list in
a tree structure? The example from the original post, but modified:

<ul class="example">
<li> first
<li> second
<li> third
  <ul class="example">
  <li> first nested
  <li> second nested
  <li> third nested
  </ul>
<li> forth (resumed)
</ul>

Would appear something like:
*-+--- first
  |--- second
  |-+- third
  | |--- first nested
  | |--- second nested
  | +--- third nested
  +--- forth (resumed)

Does that sound like a sensible thing to do?

Daniel
Received on Friday, 20 July 2001 01:37:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:10 GMT