- From: Daniel W. Connolly <connolly@beach.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 18:03:22 -0400
- To: mjhanna@sandia.gov (Michael J Hannah)
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
In message <9508031937.AA12956@sass027.sandia.gov>, Michael J Hannah writes: > >Personally, I believe that you get CONSIDERABLY more expressive power >than you currently have. For me as a document composer, the ability to >have control over the list ITEM heading is worth the bother. Plus, >having a general purpose autonumbering scheme is, for me, WELL worth >the bother. Others have mentioned the expanding outline capability. >That is not of interest to me, but is an expressive power that we do >not already have at the control of the document composer, and which >this proposal provides. For them (see message from >simonb@ctt.bellcore.com sent on Thu Aug 3 06:28:10 1995) it is worth >the bother. And further, the bother (or hassle) is not (IMHO) that >great, nor is the idiom that different. OK, now that I look at it more closely, I see that there is some novelty in the proposal. But why throw out the existing markup? Why not just add to it? |Rationale | |I believe that modifying the list concept to a single generic element |will eliminate the current and future need for differently named HTML |elements to identify different ways to present lists The distinction between <ol>, <ul>, and <dl> is not just presentation, if you ask me. They are distinct communications idioms. So allow me to suggest alternatives to your examples in http://www.sandia.gov/sci_compute/lists.html |Definition List leave it as is. Clearly, this example shows no novelty. |Menu List MENU/DIR arguably never belonged in HTML. The cited html3-ism: <UL PLAIN> looks happy to me. After this example, you write: |Comments | | No PLAIN attribute is required, simply the absence of any LIH | elements. This is the simplest type of list, and is the simplest | markup. This is just bad language design, if you ask me. Clearly, bulleted lists are the most common _usage_, hence it should have the simplest markup. I think you're guilty of thinking too much like a programmer -- especially in this case -- but throughout this proposal. |Ordered List | |Current Ordered List Mechanism | <OL> | <LI>Get in boat. | <LI>Untie from dock. | <LI>Put up sail. | </OL> |Proposed Ordered List Mechanism | <LIST> | <LI><LIH><NUM SEQNUM=1>. </LIH>Get in boat. | <LI><LIH><NUM>. </LIH>Untie from dock. | <LI><LIH><NUM>. </LIH>Put up sail. | </LIST> Ack! Clearly a loss. | <LIST> | <LI><LIH>Step <NUM SEQNUM=1>. </LIH>Get in boat. | <LI><LIH>Step <NUM>. </LIH>Untie from dock. | <LI><LIH>Step <NUM>. </LIH>Put up sail. | </LIST> so now we get to something that's not expressible in HTML 2.0. The <NUM> element might make an interesting proposal by itself, without all the other noise. So we might write: <ul plain> <LI>Step <NUM SEQNUM=1>. Get in boat. <LI>Step <NUM>. Untie from dock. <LI>Step <NUM>. Put up sail. </ul> but then you lose some of the alignment. So we might write: <dl compact> <dt>Step <NUM SEQNUM=1>.<dd> Get in boat. <dt>Step <NUM>. <dd>Untie from dock. <dt>Step <NUM>. <dd>Put up sail. </dl> The tricky part about NUM is when the <num> element occurs much before the element it refers to. It introduces two-pass formatting (if you've got a way around that, you should definitely put it in the proposal). | <LIST> | <LI><LIH><LD></LIH>Fruit | <LIST> | <LI><LIH><LD></LIH>Bananas | <LI><LIH><LD></LIH>Pears | <LI><LIH><LD></LIH>Apples | </LIST> | <LI><LIH><LD></LIH>Nuts | <LIST> | <LI><LIH><LD></LIH>Pecans | <LI><LIH><LD></LIH>Walnuts | <LI><LIH><LD></LIH>Cashews | </LIST> | </LIST> Ack! Please no! :-) | <LIST> | <LI><LIH><IMG HREF="banana.gif"></LIH>Bananas | <LI><LIH><IMG HREF="pear.gif"></LIH>Pears | <LI><LIH><IMG HREF="apple.gif"></LIH>Apples | </LIST> This one needs addressing. But isn't the obvious markup already in the HTML 3 draft? <ul> <LI src="banana.gif">Bananas <LI src="pear.gif">Pears <LI src="apple.gif">Apples </LIST> | Successively Revealed Outlines List Aside from tricks with <num>, this reduces to some mechanism for hiding portions of a document. Easily expressible in stylesheets in combination with the class attribute. The HIDE attribute is an alternative I could live with. Dan
Received on Thursday, 3 August 1995 18:03:30 UTC