- From: Philip Parker <philip246@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:33:21 +0000
What about having it render as a standard unordered list ( ie, bulletpoints ) until the entire set of items has been received - and then re-rendering the list as a numbered type, all properly calculated James Graham wrote: > Siemova wrote: >> On Jan 23, 2008 10:54 AM, David Walbert <dwalbert at learnnc.org >> <mailto:dwalbert at learnnc.org>> wrote: >> >> >> It's not that simple -- the last line should be >> >> start = 1 + ( (number of items - 1) * step) >> >> if it's assumed that the last item of the list is numbered one by >> default. >> >> >> Alas, we see the ill effects of my hastiness today! I stand happily >> corrected. In that case, it's even simpler: >> >> if start is not specified >> start = 1 >> if reverse >> start += (number of items - 1) * step > > The problem that Jonas originally pointed out is that, given browsers > do incremental rendering "number of items" is not a known quantity > when the list is first rendered. For a pathological example of why > this is a problem, imagine a cgi script that just kept spewing out > reverse numbered list items, one per second, indefinitely. > > It may be that in practice lists are short enough that they are > typically rendered all in one go so this wouldn't be a problem. I > don't think that's obvious, however. > > >
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 09:33:21 UTC