Re: Why "ul"
Alex Hopmann (hopmann@holonet.net)
Thu, 9 Mar 1995 16:31:29 -0800
>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?
Hmm, here is an interesting idea, but its more of a table. What about a
table, for instance of file names, sizes, types, and some other attribute.
And the order of items in the table is not absolute. But a client might
choose to let users sort by either file name, file type, or file size, and
the table updates itself without having to make another server query.
We have incorporated some ideas like this with out "Template" mechanisms for
specifying tables, and it seems to present some very useful capabilities.
Alex Hopmann
ResNova Software, Inc.
hopmann@holonet.net