Re: Why "ul"

Josh Engel (jengel@c3i.saic.com)
Thu, 9 Mar 95 13:03:23 EST

Evan writes:
> > <ul> is easier to type than <list unordered>. It costs less network
> > bandwidth. It's here today and it works.

It is "traditional" when you discover that part of a language should
be replaced by another is to introduce the new construct, "depracate"
the old one, and gradually stop supporting it.

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? Nondeterministic HTML anybody?