- From: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 12:39:36 -0400
- To: www-html@w3.org
Jonny Axelsson wrote:
>
> To clarify that statement, the 'value' attribute on 'li' should be
> reinstated. This makes 'start' strictly speaking redundant (you can set the
> same 'value' value on the first 'li' as you would put in 'start' on an
> 'ol'). But 'start' has existed before, it may be more natural, and you can
> say a little redundancy has never killed anyone.
The difference between
<ol start='0'>
<li>
<li>
</ol>
and
<ol>
<li value=0>
<li>
</ol>
is that in the first, the numbering of the list is defined to
start at 0. The second code snippet renders the same, with the
first item being numberd 0. However, what's actually happening
is that the first item is assigned a position of zero, affecting
the rest of the items, while the list itself still starts
counting at one. If you insert another <li> at the beginning of
the list, you'll see what I mean.
~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2002 12:39:56 UTC