On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Doug Jolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just noticed that apparently the full spectrum of list-style-types > apply equally to both ordered lists and unordered lists. So, ordered > lists can have a list-style-type of "disc" and unordered lists can > have a list-style-type of "decimal". Does anyone see any reason why > ALL list-style-types can't be applied to both ordered and unordered > lists? I guess the only reason that we have 2 types of lists is > backward compatibility. > > Thanks for any input. > > ... doug
Doug, So far as markup is concerned, there is a good reason for ul and ol to me. ul = Here's a bunch of garbage in no particular order ol = I spent time putting this in order, so it needs to be noted. Style wise, I can see using an ul with decimal styling if you're not concerned with the markup showing that it's supposed to be in a particular order, you just want the users blessed with style to have the convenience of seeing your cherished list to be in an apparent numerical order. Ultimately, where styles are concerned, I don't see a reason why not. Others more qualified may have a different opinion, but I believe it matters in the markup: ul if you don't care, and ol if you do. -- -Jack Timmons http://www.trotlc.com ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
