Re: DL Compact "Peter Lister, Cranfield Computer Centre" <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Subject: Re: DL Compact
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 14 May 93 15:07:05 BST."
Date: Mon, 17 May 93 10:28:57 BST
From: "Peter Lister, Cranfield Computer Centre" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> How should HTML+ (aka HMML) handle compact lists?
> <OL COMPACT> or <OLC>
<OL COMPACT>, with <OL C> as an acceptable abbreviation
> Also what about a means for specifying an explicit string in place
> of the standard bullet for unordered lists, e.g. <LI LABEL="a)">?
Is this supposed to affect the label for the current instance, or all
following list items? I would prefer
which would recommend a label to the viewer for all future <ul>s
Have we considered
<OLLABEL3 ="%d1.%d2.%d3>>">, which would make all <OL> subsublists be labelled
4.1.3>> Index entry
%dn being replaced by the sequence number at level n. (1=list, 2=sublist,...)
To take this to it's logical conclusion, why not reduce <ul> and <ol>
(even <dl>?) to a generic list type with definable labelling
strategies. There would be one or two common ones (corresponding to the
existing UL and OL, and maybe others a, b, c.... and i, ii, iii.... ),
but specifics can be defined by the document author. It occurs to me
that legal documents would benefit from automatic labelling of things
as Section (a), subsection iii(f). Or maybe not.
Peter Lister email@example.com
Cranfield Institute of Technology, Voice: +44 234 754200 ext 2828
Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL England Fax: +44 234 750875