Hi Stephen, At 2026-05-10T10:46:29-0700, Stephen Gildea wrote: > > I expect to omit the "enumerated" (`ol`) type, at least initially > > and possibly indefinitely, awaiting demand. The reason is that > > man(7) documents are responsible for managing their own enumerators, > > and it will add complexity to drop the already explicitly specified > > list marks from page content so that the HTML renderer can supply > > them. > > Since you are going to have .LS (of any type) not supply the > label (bullet, number, whatever), you can treat "enumerated" > and "itemized" the same. That is, any HTML list will have to > suppress the HTML renderer's default labels, because the > manuscript is expected to supply them for each item. > > An example will help show how I'm thinking about this: > > Manuscript: > > .LS enumerated 1 > .IP 1. > Item one. > .IP 2. > Item two. > .LE
Ah, I see--so I can resurrect the 'enumerated' `LS` type but also
use CSS to override the item marks that the HTML renderer would
otherwise generate itself. Semantic markup fans will appreciate that.
> HTML output:
>
> <style>
> :is(ol,ul).man {
> list-style-type: none;
> }
> </style>
>
> <ol compact class="man">
> <li style="list-style-type:'1. '">
> Item one.
> <li style="list-style-type:'2. '">
> Item two.
> </ol>
Thanks for this. I didn't have _that_ in mind at all. Today I learned
that "compact" is an attribute of HTML `ul` and `ol` elements. I got
out of the Web page business in about 2000. :-O
I appreciate the pointer.
Regards,
Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
