Re: Why "ul"

Yuri Rubinsky (
Fri, 10 Mar 1995 08:44:00 -0500

J Engel writes:

> I agree that ordered and unoredered lists should be replaced by
general lists with any kind of bullet you want. Why can't we
have our cake and eat it too?

POSSIBLE COUNTERARGUMENT: can anybody come up with a good reason for
truly "unordered" lists?


There is a very strong difference between these two.

In an ordered list, there is a presumption (perhaps a requirement under
some circumstances) that things be in this order and include all these
parts. "Do these eight things before starting the engines on your plane.

In an ordered list, it's more like "I'm off to the grocery store and
I need to buy these eight items."

Which is intended to imply that with an OL, the range of styles from
which you might choose is likely to be from 1,2,3 to 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, to
A, B, C or a,b,c or I, II, III or i, ii, iii, etc.

With a UL, your set of styles might be limited to choices of bullets
or other symbols which adequately represent the notion that sequence
is not important.


Yuri Rubinsky +1 416 239-4801
SoftQuad Inc. uucp: {uunet,utzoo}!sq!yuri
Suite 810 56 Aberfoyle Crescent Internet:
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M8X 2W4 Fax: +1 416 239-7105