- From: Siemova <siemova@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:25:27 -0600
Ah, yes, true enough. For a moment I forgot that. Thank you for pointing it out. So default would logically be for the numbering to end at 1. Thus, the code < ol reverse> < li>Red</li> < li>Orange</li> < li>Yellow</li> < li>Green</li> < li>Blue</li> < /ol> would display as: 5. Red 4. Orange 3. Yellow 2. Green 1. Blue If you included step="2", it would display this way: 9. Red 7. Orange 5. Yellow 3. Green 1. Blue And, if after that you threw a start="4" onto it: 4. Red 2. Orange 0. Yellow -2. Green -4. Blue I guess that's what I was thinking of when I told Sam I don't see a problem with negative values. But it would only occur in a case where you used a start value which was lower than the step value times the number of list items. Otherwise (to repeat myself) a reversed list would end at 1 by default. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. - Jason On Jan 23, 2008 8:58 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp at opera.com> wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:03:42 +0100, Lachlan Hunt > <lachlan.hunt at lachy.id.au> wrote: > > > Simon Pieters wrote: > >> <ol start="100" reverse> > >> The lack of start='' would make the numbers update as the list is > >> filled with <li>s. This allows both for simplicitly for short lists and > >> correct incremental rendering for large lists. > > > > No, the lack of an explicit start attribute would make it start from the > > default value: 1. It would then count down from there: > > > > 1. A > > 0. B > > -1. C > > -2. D > > Why? From an authoring perspective I would say that it's more useful to > have the last item be 1 by default. > > -- > Simon Pieters > Opera Software > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20080123/fd237ac8/attachment.htm>
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 07:25:27 UTC