More on Lists...

-- From: Charles Peyton Taylor <> --
>2. Since we already have TYPE, would <UL TYPE=EMPTY> be
>   satisfactory? That way we wouldn't need a new attribute.

I don't see a problem with this one.  It was also proposed (by Abigail?) 
that TYPE could be used for "dingbats" as well.  It turns out that there 
is no mention of a DINGBAT attribute in the "HTML predefined icon-like 
symbols" draft ( but it is 
mentioned in the HTML3.0 spec.

-- From: Warren Steel <> --
>   So I try to be merciless:  as Chris suggests, leave out ALT=
>There's plenty of degrading built in.  Columns would be nice, but 
>they are barely implemented (if at all); list headers would be 
>nice indeed, but I'm trying to keep new *elements* to a minimum.
>A possible workaround might be
>  <div class=list> <h3>list heading</h3> <ul>...</ul> </div>

The problem with this workaround is that if you were to later change the 
position of the list within your source file, you may have to change your 
h3 to a different heading level.  Using LH as a list header completely 
encapsulates the header with the list, so moving it around won't require 
later changes.

-- From: Charles Peyton Taylor <> --
Subject:  ID, was (More on list attributes, <HR> -Reply)
>ID would be very useful if it were implimented in 
>all browsers the way it is in UDI-WWW or (I think) 
>Arena.  It is, however, not very backwards-compatible.

Agreed.  The ID attribute when used as an anchor for a hypertext link 
wouldn't be very useful since it isn't implemented as a browser 
function (in the current mass browser market).  But the CSS draft 
proposes ID to identify individual elements more efficiently, so we could end 
up having ID someday, but not as it was originaly proposed for.

We should probably just not mention ID or CLASS since others are working 
towards standardizing the elements.

----------------------- Christopher P. Josephes ----------------------------
Email |
Web   |

Received on Sunday, 19 May 1996 23:20:04 UTC