Vicki Berry said: > Yes, definitely, I just don't know how to mark it up so I can keep my > lists and the table.
The "In you dreams" solution. Any chance it can be rewritten in *plain english* to remove the redundant clauses and overuse of numbering? Example: clause 1(b)is already *explicitly* described by clause 1(a). The "It's a legal document and can't be changed" or "Written by laywer-types for lawyer-types" solution. Because the document is written in leagalise I would not leave the numbering up to HTML + CSS to interpret - hard code the values instead. Forget about using lists - clauses are *not* list items - and instead concentrate on marking the table up so that it linerises properly (i.e. each charge is preceded by it's descriptor). I believe it is a layout table (basically to line up the charges to the right) *not* a data table because the header cells of "item" and "charges GST.." can both be removed without loss of meaning for the table. Therefore, I recommend you not add any special markup to it.(OK maybe the GST included part is important - put it in the caption). kind regards Terrence Wood. ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
