On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:12 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.
No an ordered list can't have a "disc" and an unordered list can't be numbered. When in doubt read the specs: "Ordered and unordered lists are rendered in an identical manner except that visual user agents number ordered list items. User agents may present those numbers in a variety of ways. Unordered list items are not numbered." http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/lists.html#edef-UL Under the heading "10.3.1 Visual rendering of lists" the specs make the distinction clearer by specifiying the available "type" attributes for both ol and ul. Structurally then, the list-style-type indicates what type of list it is and how the list information should be understood. CSS bundles all the options but not all can be applied to each form of list. It takes two to tango. drew ______________________________________________________________________ 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/
