Can a numbered list start at something > 1?

Hi dorayme

On 27 Dec, 20:08, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

In article
70123fbe-36fd-4924-b1be-a89191f91... (AT) a35g2000prf (DOT) googlegroups.co
m>,
Dave Rado <dave.r... (AT) dsl (DOT) pipex.com> wrote:

I have always used tables for all my lists up to now, but I'm trying
to see whether I can use css instead.

Just to make one thing clear, if the list is unordered then
almost always the right thing to do is to use a proper unordered
html list and style it. So it is important to keep trying on this
one. The situation with ordered lists is different, here there is
less pressure for reasons I have given you, to try too hard.

--
dorayme

By unordered list, do you mean bullets? I already do use css for
bullets.

Dave

On 28 Dec, 18:35, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4... (AT) centralva (DOT) net> wrote:

Dave Rado wrote:
All graphics of any significant width also make life difficult for
small screens - do you want to ban graphics from the web as well? Some
content is appropropriate for people using small screens, and other
content is not. You can't cater for everyone all of the time. Life is
full of compromises.

True, but we are not talking about images but text, so why create the
artificial barrier? With respect to images, I would refrain from 700px
to ones 300-500px.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIOhttp://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

I'm not talking about text, I'm talking about *documents*, that
contain text *and* graphics *and* sometimes complex multi-column
display tables, *and* all the other elements that one might see in a
long technical report or book. The simulated "document page"
incorporates left and right "page margins" (think of how a Word
document looks on screen). The area containing text and graphics is
approx 600 px, which isn't that much wider than what you consider to
be appropriate (and a lot of graphs would be very hard to read if
compressed to under 500px wide).

(And in answer to a point made by someone else, PDF is great for when
you want to print a document and read it right through, but for
reading documents on-screen, or for dipping in and out, or for linking
to passages within a document, web pages have many advantages over
PDF, so I provide users with both formats.

For instance, you can easily link from a blog post to a bookmark or
even to an image, on a particular page of an html "document",but not
so easily in the case of PDF. And users are mostly very resistent to
downloading large PDFs when all they want to read is maybe two
paragraphs on page 49, say. So saying "if you want nice layout, always
use PDF" smacks of absolutism to me.

I think general guidelines are great, but absolutism in my opinion, is
the biggest no-no of all.

Dave

In article
<8dfe2679-eec5-45d0-9b3d-82d0c7f34ef4 (AT) e25g2000prg (DOT) googlegroups.co
m>,
Dave Rado <dave.rado (AT) dsl (DOT) pipex.com> wrote:

Hi dorayme

On 27 Dec, 20:08, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:
In article
70123fbe-36fd-4924-b1be-a89191f91... (AT) a35g2000prf (DOT) googlegroups.co
m>,
Dave Rado <dave.r... (AT) dsl (DOT) pipex.com> wrote:

I have always used tables for all my lists up to now, but I'm trying
to see whether I can use css instead.

Just to make one thing clear, if the list is unordered then
almost always the right thing to do is to use a proper unordered
html list and style it. So it is important to keep trying on this
one. The situation with ordered lists is different, here there is
less pressure for reasons I have given you, to try too hard.

--
dorayme

By unordered list, do you mean bullets? I already do use css for
bullets.

There are a number of types of HTML lists, which one you use will
depend on the meaning you wish to convey. Certainly, by default,
<ul>s have bullets. But one can still have unordered lists
without bullets (if I were to count all mine, I'd say more are
unbulleted than bulleted). These days, authors are using lists
quite appropriately for horizontal menus; bullets are rarely
appropriate here. The meaning of an unordered list is simply that
it is a list and the order does not matter.

Hubbie is told to go and buy:

bread
milk
fags

It does not matter which order these occur in. A ul would be fine
for a wife to use who was keen to keep her distance from her
husband and communicate only via a web page*.

An ordered list is different, the wife posts this:

Take dress to the tailor and have him alter it ...
Take dress to the dry cleaners and have it cleaned and pressed.

Now, this is pretty unambiguous. The numbers don't really matter,
the order does matter here. If the wife was not very good at html
and used a ul, the poor schmuck husband (who uses a voice reader
maybe) might have the thing cleaned and pressed before taking it
to the tailor.

----------------------
* ... even email being too intimate. I knew a married couple once
who lived in the same flat and did not talk a single word to each
other for at least two decades (according to my mother). I was
truly fascinated by this and actually saw it in operation. They
never rowed or anything, she was a powerhouse of chat and a
wonderful cook and host, he was still at the table, they simply
never addressed or referred to one another - ever!

I assume they had separate bedrooms although I have to confess,
it crossed my mind when I was old enough to have such thoughts
that if they shared the same bed, the situation would have been
one of the wonders of the world along with the Sydney Opera House
and the Taj Mahal. I would question my mother incessantly about
them not talking. My mother got pretty fed up of my appetite for
an explanation!).

--
dorayme

Dave Rado wrote:

On 20 Dec, 12:26, Bergamot <berga... (AT) visi (DOT) com> wrote:
Dave Rado wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/2b2uww

Why don't you go for something simpler, and drop the legacy cruft?

http://www.bergamotus.ws/samples/daverado.html

IE seems to
ignore the "list-style: none" definition for the latter. See
http://tinyurl.com/299sjq, which uses your code but my stylesheet.

Your stylesheet is probably the problem, but it's too hard to read so I
haven't even tried to weed out the particular offending/conflicting
rules. It's likely a specificity issue. IE is probably confused. Big
surprise.

I need the simulated
"document page" to have a fixed width

You still haven't given a good reason why that is. It sounds like an
unnecessary limitation. In another post of yours:
"The area containing text and graphics is approx 600 px"

Graphics should have a fixed width, but there's no reason why text has
to be, too. Setting text width in px units is just wrong, anyway. There
is no relationship between font size and however many px you set. In
your fixed width, larger font sizes may get very short lines of text and
smaller font sizes may have lines too long; both are bad for comfortable
reading. px is just the wrong choice for text width.

--
Berg