Re: colours for bullets

In message "colours for bullets", you write:

> I caught this after I sent the mail, but thought it was low enough on
> the mistake scale that it could be caught by you and the correction
> humbly accepted. :-)  If you'd prefer, I can substitute <DD INDENT> for

Heh.. I hate when that happens; you make a mistake and don't realize it before
you send the email message. 
> I don't see it as "resorting" to CSS, to be honest; more as "extending
> CSS to do what it should be doing".  I don't see enough of a difference
> between
> <UL STYLE="bullet-color: green">
>  <LI>Green bulleted item
>  <LI STYLE="bullet-color: red">Red bulleted item
>  <LI>Black bulleted item
> </UL>
> and
> <UL>
>  <LI COLOR="green">Green bulleted item
>  <LI COLOR="red">Red bulleted item
>  <LI COLOR="green">Green bulleted item
> </UL>
> to justify preferring the latter to the former (I'll not go into the
> rant about externalizing style with attached stylesheets; you already
> know all that stuff, or you wouldn't have mentioned CSS).

Actually, no I don't know. Are you talking about inherited style "elements"
from seperate style files? I haven't really tried CSS stuff since I can't 
use MSIE on a UNIX station (or is there another UNIX compatible browser capable
of using style sheets...); I have only looked through some style sheet tutorials
and stuff like that. You're right actually, there is no real difference
between the two except for a bias for usage. Maybe just the style sheet
implementation should be developed so that people who want to use this little
thing will have to learn style sheets to use it.

> It might be nice to have <LI COLOR>, for sure, and I was one of the
> first to loudly complain when UL SRC died on the vine (before the
> release of CSS).  But right now, we have a style mechanism and it seems
> wiser to implement it and extend it than to extend HTML further with
> style tags.

For leaner code? I would still like to see <LI COLOR> anyway, along with the
style sheet implementation so both can be used.

Received on Monday, 14 April 1997 22:43:05 UTC