- From: Krzysztof Żelechowski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:17:18 +0100
Dnia 23-01-2008, ?r o godzinie 15:15 +0100, Dave Singer pisze:
> At 15:03 +0100 23/01/08, Lachlan Hunt 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
>
>
> which suggests a pair of orthogonal attributes, as above, the
> direction ('order'='increasing' or 'decreasing'??) and the initial
> ordinal value (which should be a number, even if the styling asks for
> e.g. alphabetic labelling).
>
> perhaps
>
> (from a non-expert)
Ordinal numbers should never be negative; they should always have an
alternative representation using letters (spreadsheet-style).
Negative numbers were first justified because they turned out to be
essential for solving cubic equations; anything less sophisticated can
do without them.
If the start value is too small and the ordinal number descends below 0,
the user agent should leave the remaining items unmarked.
The page will be ill-formed;
the author is obliged to provide a valid value for the start attribute.
The reverse attribute without a tentatively valid start attribute
should be ignored.
Chris
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 11:17:18 UTC