 | |
Ordered lists, and how to break one up while still validating.
alt.html alt.html
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Ordered lists, and how to break one up while still validating. -
03-24-2008
, 05:39 AM
|
It's a legal document that continues 1 to 53. The numbers match with the articles. Look at the link to the original and you'll see how they match. |
in some other cited document. Especially so in this case because you
know the numbers _are_ stable, i.e. skipping or duplicating a list
element in your document should preserve the numbers uncanged, not re-
number in sequence.
Numbering of <ol> in HTML just doesn't work particularly flexibly.
Attempts to make it work are amusing exercises for coders, but it's no
way to get the job done.
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <0aocu3dkf5g3lj599rgjf2jki9lbrvfleb (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Mike Barnard <m.barnard.trousers (AT) thunderin (DOT) co.uk> wrote: How do you do large ordered lists, if you need to break them up with headings yet still have it pass validation? First you make sure it is an ordered list. Just because a list has numbers does not mean it is ordered in the meaning of "ordered list". The meaning of order that is particularly relevant to an ordered list can be a tricky matter. The folk who made up the css on this cannot be blamed for not looking deeply into the matter, ordering and classifying being a very complex linguistic human activity. They rested content on probably no more than a couple of simple paradigms or examples. Thus: If a shopping list, for example, consisted of dry groceries and were to be purchased from a shop with a staff member behind a counter (as in the good old days), then the order is unlikely to matter. But it might matter if the items were to be purchased from different shops on a route that minimised energy. If it matters which order the person is to get things, then you would give an ordered list. If not, an unordered one. |
because people number them in the order they're in anyway.
No-one writes:
3. Go home
1. Go to shop
2. Buy apples
So you might just as well use bullets or nothing as write:
1. Go to shop
2. Buy apples
3. Go home
The main point of numbers is so you can refer to them. "In section 2,
rotten apples are deprecated", etc.
[...]
Quote:
|
Normally I would say an unordered list has no exact semantic table equivalent. But I make an exception for a special type of unordered list. One in which the numbers are an identifying feature of the item (rather than a call for action in the real world in a particular order - as in an algorithm). The spare parts example is appropriate here. The table would certainly be appropriate where the part number is on the left and the item description on the right, row by row a very tabular affair. |
refer to the items on the list.
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
Scripsit Mike Barnard: I know what is wrong, I need to finish a list, do the heading then start a new list. So I need the new list to start an a number other than 1, where the previous list finished. The "start" property of the ol> has been deprecieated but no matching CSS has been created. Right, so use the "start" attribute. Use the deprecieated 'start' property? No validation but *may* work in more browsers? What do you mean by "No validation"? Validity is a formal thing, and a document validates if you use document type definition (DTD) that matches the actual markup. In this case, you can simply use HTML 4.01 Transitional. Even if this were not the case, "No validation" would not be true; if you actually used an attribute not present in HTML specifications, then you could say "Nonconforming markup" or even (stretching the word "standard") "Nonstandard markup". But it would still be valid if and only if you use a DTD that allows the markup. Technically, the "start" attribute is presentational, so if it is _essential_ that the items be numbered in a particular way, you should put the numbers into actual content, e.g. li>1. Text of the item</li probably inside a <ul> element (since you dont want the browser-generated numbers that <ol> produces at least when CSS is off) with list-style-type: none. |
and counter-increment), but it isn't supported very widely. Opera
manages it.
Easier just to put the numbers in the <li>s as you suggest.
#14
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
On 2008-03-24, dorayme <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote: In article <0aocu3dkf5g3lj599rgjf2jki9lbrvfleb (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Mike Barnard <m.barnard.trousers (AT) thunderin (DOT) co.uk> wrote: How do you do large ordered lists, if you need to break them up with headings yet still have it pass validation? First you make sure it is an ordered list. Just because a list has numbers does not mean it is ordered in the meaning of "ordered list". The meaning of order that is particularly relevant to an ordered list can be a tricky matter. The folk who made up the css on this cannot be blamed for not looking deeply into the matter, ordering and classifying being a very complex linguistic human activity. They rested content on probably no more than a couple of simple paradigms or examples. Thus: If a shopping list, for example, consisted of dry groceries and were to be purchased from a shop with a staff member behind a counter (as in the good old days), then the order is unlikely to matter. But it might matter if the items were to be purchased from different shops on a route that minimised energy. If it matters which order the person is to get things, then you would give an ordered list. If not, an unordered one. Putting numbers on a list doesn't usually mean anything much about order because people number them in the order they're in anyway. |
The list being ordered or unordered in its nature is another.
Quote:
|
No-one writes: 3. Go home 1. Go to shop 2. Buy apples So you might just as well use bullets or nothing as write: 1. Go to shop 2. Buy apples 3. Go home |
not a mere (and mostly not particularly useful) confirmation of the
order on the page, then they might well be so written as in your first
example. You can see this better if you *always* think in terms of a 2
col table and ask yourself what would be in the head of the table over
the number col. If "Shop number in the mall" was over it and you asked
your son to fetch various things, you might well give him an ordered
list - yes, an ordered one - but with "3" showing in the first row
because shop 3 was in fact the shop you wanted him to go to first. The
table rows, as they proceeded down would reflect the order you wanted or
recommended your son to go in, the numbers being merely to identify
something to do with the list item. Think my case of the dress
alteration/dry cleaner example.
Quote:
|
The main point of numbers is so you can refer to them. "In section 2, rotten apples are deprecated", etc. |
Quote:
|
[...] Normally I would say an unordered list has no exact semantic table equivalent. But I make an exception for a special type of unordered list. One in which the numbers are an identifying feature of the item (rather than a call for action in the real world in a particular order - as in an algorithm). The spare parts example is appropriate here. The table would certainly be appropriate where the part number is on the left and the item description on the right, row by row a very tabular affair. I think they're all like that really-- the numbers are just labels to refer to the items on the list. |
lists that have numbers on them, then I disagree. In an ordered list the
numbers are not "just" labels. They are a reflection of an important
real world situation (actual, required or imagined). In an algorithm,
for example, the order in which the list items are arranged is
important. The actual numbers are not as important, they do have a
labelling function.
Consider how an ordered list might have no numbers
<ol style="list-style: none;">
(A rare sight because so many authors simply do not take the real
distinction between an ordered and an unordered list seriously, most
authors, I suspect (perhaps this is unfair? I do not refer to regulars
here.) just think of an ordered list as a presentational device to get
numbers up on the page.
Just as an unordered one might have no numbers or even bullets, so too
might an ordered one. They are different in meaning and this meaning
might be very important. In a critical situation, it could mean the
difference between life and death. Want examples?
--
dorayme
#15
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
|
In article <slrnfufa44.th7.spamspam (AT) bowser (DOT) marioworld>, Ben C <spamspam (AT) spam (DOT) eggs> wrote: [...] Putting numbers on a list doesn't usually mean anything much about order because people number them in the order they're in anyway. Putting the numbers on either unordered or ordered lists is one thing. The list being ordered or unordered in its nature is another. |
Quote:
|
No-one writes: 3. Go home 1. Go to shop 2. Buy apples So you might just as well use bullets or nothing as write: 1. Go to shop 2. Buy apples 3. Go home Not necessarily. If the numbers are labels that have a meaning that is not a mere (and mostly not particularly useful) confirmation of the order on the page, then they might well be so written as in your first example. |
probably do mean something else. But it's rare that they aren't just in
ascending order (and quite hard to get OLs not to just go up in
ascending order).
That's why I think that in most cases the only difference between
numbers and bullets is that you can use the numbers to refer to the
items in other text in the document. The list is usually ordered (even
if arbitrarily) in only one way.
Quote:
|
You can see this better if you *always* think in terms of a 2 col table and ask yourself what would be in the head of the table over the number col. If "Shop number in the mall" was over it and you asked your son to fetch various things, you might well give him an ordered list - yes, an ordered one - but with "3" showing in the first row because shop 3 was in fact the shop you wanted him to go to first. The table rows, as they proceeded down would reflect the order you wanted or recommended your son to go in, the numbers being merely to identify something to do with the list item. Think my case of the dress alteration/dry cleaner example. |
example:
3. Tom
1. Dick
2. Harry
might mean Tom won at Boggle but came 3rd at Scrabble, etc.
[...]
Quote:
|
Normally I would say an unordered list has no exact semantic table equivalent. But I make an exception for a special type of unordered list. One in which the numbers are an identifying feature of the item (rather than a call for action in the real world in a particular order - as in an algorithm). The spare parts example is appropriate here. The table would certainly be appropriate where the part number is on the left and the item description on the right, row by row a very tabular affair. I think they're all like that really-- the numbers are just labels to refer to the items on the list. If you mean by "they" in "they're all like that really" to refer to all lists that have numbers on them, then I disagree. |
the page, then they aren't really saying anything.
A list is either ordered or unordered in the sense of whether the order
matters, and either kind of list can be written with numbers or bullets.
If an ordered list is written with numbers, and the numbers are
in-order, then surely they are just labels? The list is in order anyway.
1. Light blue touchpaper
2. Stand back
doesn't mean anything different from:
* Light blue touchpaper
* Stand back
They're both obviously ordered lists. The numbers are just labels.
If the numbers aren't in the same order as the items' vertical positions
then they aren't just labels, but then perhaps it's really a table and
not just a list at all.
Quote:
|
In an ordered list the numbers are not "just" labels. They are a reflection of an important real world situation (actual, required or imagined). In an algorithm, for example, the order in which the list items are arranged is important. The actual numbers are not as important, they do have a labelling function. Consider how an ordered list might have no numbers ol style="list-style: none;" |
me more convinced than ever that the numbers are mere labels.
If an ordered list can be written just as well with bullets, which it
can, then using in-order numbers instead doesn't seem to be adding
anything. Perhaps it emphasizes the order a bit? I don't even think it
does, especially as one often numbers unordered lists.
The only point I can see to in-order numbers is cross-referencing.
Quote:
|
(A rare sight because so many authors simply do not take the real distinction between an ordered and an unordered list seriously, most authors, I suspect (perhaps this is unfair? I do not refer to regulars here.) just think of an ordered list as a presentational device to get numbers up on the page. |
they should be called numbered and unnumbered lists, not ordered and
unordered. Perhaps you're right, people should use OL/UL for
ordered/unordered lists and decide whether they're numbered or get
bullets with CSS.
Quote:
|
Just as an unordered one might have no numbers or even bullets, so too might an ordered one. They are different in meaning and this meaning might be very important. In a critical situation, it could mean the difference between life and death. Want examples? |
misadventure and death. Can you give an example where using in-order
numbers rather than bullets (or the other way round) on either an
unordered or ordered list could mean the difference between life and
death?
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 2008-03-24, dorayme <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote: In article <slrnfufa44.th7.spamspam (AT) bowser (DOT) marioworld>, Ben C <spamspam (AT) spam (DOT) eggs> wrote: [...] .... Well if the numbers are in the same order that the items are arranged on the page, then they aren't really saying anything. A list is either ordered or unordered in the sense of whether the order matters, and either kind of list can be written with numbers or bullets. If an ordered list is written with numbers, and the numbers are in-order, then surely they are just labels? The list is in order anyway. 1. Light blue touchpaper 2. Stand back doesn't mean anything different from: * Light blue touchpaper * Stand back They're both obviously ordered lists. The numbers are just labels. If the numbers aren't in the same order as the items' vertical positions then they aren't just labels, but then perhaps it's really a table and not just a list at all. |
matter. An ordered list, and even some unordered lists are semantically
not that different from 2 col tables with special headings. I have
argued this a number of times. But please read on first.
Quote:
|
In an ordered list the numbers are not "just" labels. They are a reflection of an important real world situation (actual, required or imagined). In an algorithm, for example, the order in which the list items are arranged is important. The actual numbers are not as important, they do have a labelling function. Consider how an ordered list might have no numbers ol style="list-style: none;" Yes I can see an ordered list might have no numbers. But this just makes me more convinced than ever that the numbers are mere labels. If an ordered list can be written just as well with bullets, which it can, then using in-order numbers instead doesn't seem to be adding anything. Perhaps it emphasizes the order a bit? I don't even think it does, especially as one often numbers unordered lists. |
are as far apart on this question of the numbers as might appear. We
both agree that the presence of numbers or bullets do not alter the
fundamental difference between two quite different types of list, the ol
and the ul. You appear to lean toward the idea that they are almost
gratuitous or else useful for later cross reference.
The boy you sent to get the cheese with the unpronounceable and
impossible to spell name will be relieved to tell his parent that the
grocer said he did not have the item with the 15 in front of it. Even if
the list was ordered!
Whereas I am more wary of quite so downplaying them. The numbers are
information to the user that the list is probably an ordered one, that
the order is important. The numbers are *not* always mere labels. They
are doing a semantic job that goes beyond simply linking the item to a
label.
In an ideal world in which ordered list were seen to be such, the
numbers would not be needed except as mere labels (as they are in
unordered ones).
Quote:
|
The only point I can see to in-order numbers is cross-referencing. (A rare sight because so many authors simply do not take the real distinction between an ordered and an unordered list seriously, most authors, I suspect (perhaps this is unfair? I do not refer to regulars here.) just think of an ordered list as a presentational device to get numbers up on the page. That is my cynical view of OLs. But in that case they are misnamed-- they should be called numbered and unnumbered lists, not ordered and unordered. Perhaps you're right, people should use OL/UL for ordered/unordered lists and decide whether they're numbered or get bullets with CSS. Just as an unordered one might have no numbers or even bullets, so too might an ordered one. They are different in meaning and this meaning might be very important. In a critical situation, it could mean the difference between life and death. Want examples? I can think of examples where doing things in the wrong order results in misadventure and death. |
ordered or not. One indication (it is not 100% reliable because we both
can see how unordered lists are sometimes also labelled) is the
numbering rather than bulleting. This function is not for mere cross
referencing.
--
dorayme
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
... The numbers are *not* always mere labels. They are doing a semantic job that goes beyond simply linking the item to a label. |
an ordered list are not *mere labels* by the following consideration:
imagine an ordered list that got printed out, damaged and broken up.
You know from the context or from memory that the list critically
ordered. You cannot reconstruct the order if the labels did not have an
ordering meaning. If they were 1, 2, 3 etc this would immediately give
you the order, first, second, third. If they were mere labels with no
meaning at all (beyond a handy cross referencing device) you would be
lost and it could result in a critical accident.
This is why I say that the numbers in an ordered list, while not being
necessary, are nevertheless more than mere labels as might be the case
in an unordered list. One can deduce from the n-format label which is
nth item in a list in a way one cannot deduce from an arbitrary-label
which is the nth item in a list.
--
dorayme
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article doraymeRidThis-650709.13023025032008...ptusnet.com.au>, dorayme <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote: ... The numbers are *not* always mere labels. They are doing a semantic job that goes beyond simply linking the item to a label. Perhaps, Ben, you might be a little more convinced that the numbers in an ordered list are not *mere labels* by the following consideration: imagine an ordered list that got printed out, damaged and broken up. You know from the context or from memory that the list critically ordered. You cannot reconstruct the order if the labels did not have an ordering meaning. If they were 1, 2, 3 etc this would immediately give you the order, first, second, third. If they were mere labels with no meaning at all (beyond a handy cross referencing device) you would be lost and it could result in a critical accident. This is why I say that the numbers in an ordered list, while not being necessary, are nevertheless more than mere labels as might be the case in an unordered list. One can deduce from the n-format label which is nth item in a list in a way one cannot deduce from an arbitrary-label which is the nth item in a list. |
isn't important and OL for when it is. Their example is the ingredients
in a cake (unordered) and the instructions to make it (ordered).
It then goes on to say that ordered lists are rendered with numbers,
which are supposed to emphasize the order, like you're saying. So you
aren't the only person who thinks this.
Perhaps using bullets for ordered information is bad style if nothing
else, since it could cause critical accidents.
If someone pedantic is using numbers just as labels perhaps they should
technically use an OL or even a DL and restyle it?
#19
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 2008-03-25, dorayme <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote: In article doraymeRidThis-650709.13023025032008...ptusnet.com.au>, dorayme <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote: ... The numbers are *not* always mere labels. They are doing a semantic job that goes beyond simply linking the item to a label. Perhaps, Ben, you might be a little more convinced that the numbers in an ordered list are not *mere labels* by the following consideration: imagine an ordered list that got printed out, damaged and broken up. You know from the context or from memory that the list critically ordered. You cannot reconstruct the order if the labels did not have an ordering meaning. If they were 1, 2, 3 etc this would immediately give you the order, first, second, third. If they were mere labels with no meaning at all (beyond a handy cross referencing device) you would be lost and it could result in a critical accident. This is why I say that the numbers in an ordered list, while not being necessary, are nevertheless more than mere labels as might be the case in an unordered list. One can deduce from the n-format label which is nth item in a list in a way one cannot deduce from an arbitrary-label which is the nth item in a list. I looked at the HTML spec and they do say UL is for data where the order isn't important and OL for when it is. Their example is the ingredients in a cake (unordered) and the instructions to make it (ordered). It then goes on to say that ordered lists are rendered with numbers, which are supposed to emphasize the order, like you're saying. So you aren't the only person who thinks this. Perhaps using bullets for ordered information is bad style if nothing else, since it could cause critical accidents. If someone pedantic is using numbers just as labels perhaps they should technically use an OL or even a DL and restyle it? |
Anyway, just talking to you about this has made me even more uneasy
about the whole distinction as implemented in html and css. I am rather
tempted by the view that there should never have been the distinction in
the first place. I repeat that a couple of paradigm cases (see your
reference to the examples used in the html specs) are just too thin a
ground to rest this machinery on. (I say repeat because I have made the
point before with other examples)
Imagine no "ol" or "ul" in the first place in html, just "list". Keep it
simple! Leave it to the context and the author to make it clear how
important the order is.
If you actually think about it, there are surely gradations of
importance. By this I mean specifically that a list's order might be
partly important and this will never ever be captured by meanings built
into html elements. You could have a list that was ordered to an extent!
And I am *not* meaning one that is so clear that it can be split into an
ol with ul sub lists or vice versa. There may well be contexts where the
author is simply unsure which order to put something in but knows that
the order or rough order might be important.
As in an algorithmic proposal to be experimented with by the reader.
Sure the author might ol it and add a rider that the reader transpose
the order to make the procedure do what he wants. Or he might ul it and
add a rider that the order they are seeing on the page is roughly right
(eg. you do not light the match first but you might put in the detonator
before you add the right side panel to the box depending on the tools
you have available or your dexterity). Never mind the details, I am
saying that the distinction between ol and ul is really not all that
useful in practice. It is a distracting straight jacket and impedes
development. Authors should really be freed of having to worry about it.
We would never be having this discussion, others would never be worried
which to use where and when and so on. The context is often the best
indicator of what is meant. I am saying that the html meanings here are
nowhere near the power of contexts in their capacity to transmit
information.
--
dorayme
#20
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
In article <slrnfuk11f.j08.spamspam (AT) bowser (DOT) marioworld>, Ben C <spamspam (AT) spam (DOT) eggs> wrote: [...] If someone pedantic is using numbers just as labels perhaps they should technically use an OL or even a DL and restyle it? Is your last "OL" a typo? |
Quote:
|
Anyway, just talking to you about this has made me even more uneasy about the whole distinction as implemented in html and css. I am rather tempted by the view that there should never have been the distinction in the first place. I repeat that a couple of paradigm cases (see your reference to the examples used in the html specs) are just too thin a ground to rest this machinery on. (I say repeat because I have made the point before with other examples) Imagine no "ol" or "ul" in the first place in html, just "list". Keep it simple! Leave it to the context and the author to make it clear how important the order is. |
bullets. Word processors have a button for whether you want numbers or
bullets. People expect to choose numbers or bullets. So that's what you
got in HTML and they were called UL and OL, even if that's not what
they're supposed to mean.
Now that you can style either how you like perhaps just one kind of list
would be better, although it's more convenient just to leave it how it
is.
Quote:
|
If you actually think about it, there are surely gradations of importance. By this I mean specifically that a list's order might be partly important and this will never ever be captured by meanings built into html elements. You could have a list that was ordered to an extent! And I am *not* meaning one that is so clear that it can be split into an ol with ul sub lists or vice versa. There may well be contexts where the author is simply unsure which order to put something in but knows that the order or rough order might be important. |
Quote:
|
We would never be having this discussion, others would never be worried which to use where and when and so on. The context is often the best indicator of what is meant. I am saying that the html meanings here are nowhere near the power of contexts in their capacity to transmit information. |
anything more strict than: is there a better tag I could have used from
the choice available?
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.