- From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 08:53:15 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
> The harder problem for Chris, IMHO, is the case where content is actually a > list and is not marked as such. > Yes. What forms of text should be made into a list? If you have a series of text blocks (separated by <P> or <BR>) that start with a 'bullet' image or an identifier ("1." or "1)" or "a." etc.) should we prompt the user to convert them to a list? Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net> To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 6:56 PM Subject: Re: a proposed plan for publishing a public working draft mid-February > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca> > >To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>; Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org> > >Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 2:34 PM > >Subject: Re: a proposed plan for publishing a public working draft > >mid-February > >> > >> My current open issues are: > >> 3.6 - "Mark up lists and list items properly" - I'm not sure how to do > >this > >> > >> > >> Wendy responded: > >> > >> 3.6 has this been discussed in the group? could you point me to the > >> discussion in the archives or in minutes? is the issue that one may > >> identify a list but aren't sure if it is marked up correctly? a hack that > >> people used to use is an LI outside of a list to force indentation. or a > >> UL with lots of Ps. I believe an HTML validator would pick these up (this > >> ought to be verified). > >> > > The harder problem for Chris, IMHO, is the case where content is actually a > list and is not marked as such. Heuristics for when to ask "is this > actually a list?" would have to be checked out for effectiveness. It is > quite common to see emulation of <UL COMPACT> with <BR> marks. This is a > good one to turn over to the robot sampling activity, to see what markup is > in actual use for lists, that is not what we recognize as list markup. > > Al >
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2000 08:53:36 UTC