Hi there, > <ol start="11"><li>First result</li> > <li>Second...</li> > ... > </ol>
My two cents: use this method. It's one of those times that the standards are too strict without providing a robust alternative (more the fault of browsers than standards, though). I would support the idea of using Transitional on those pages, taking a very clear case to the client based on *the best result for the user*. If they are serious about doing the right thing by their users they should be open to discussing an approved dispensation for that specific use. At the end of the day, my guess is a user with serious accessibility needs would rather the page actually worked than have it break but conform to the perfect standard. The other argument is that in terms of semantics, the results set is one long list. The semantic meaning of each point is a certain order in those results (regardless of the fact the list has been split into smaller pages for ease of use). For that reason I'd avoid using a table or definition list. I guess this really sums up a sort of "pragmatic fallback" approach: when pure standards fail, go with the solution that works and is the best actual result for the user. If the client refuses to budge on the standard, I guess you're dealing with Cargo Cult Standards and you'll have to use a DL or table (probably a table, semantically a little dubious but at least it gives structure :)). Hope this helps. h -- --- <http://cheshrkat.blogspot.com/> --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
