Doug Jolley wrote: > I just noticed that apparently the full spectrum of list-style-types > apply equally to both ordered lists and unordered lists.
Right. In rendering, <ol> and <ul> differ just on the default value (as per a browser style sheet, real or fictional) for the list-style-type property. Theoretically, they might have other default differences as well, but I haven't encountered any. > So, ordered > lists can have a list-style-type of "disc" and unordered lists can > have a list-style-type of "decimal". Yes. > Does anyone see any reason why > ALL list-style-types can't be applied to both ordered and unordered > lists? Pardon? You just said in the first statement that they can. > I guess the only reason that we have 2 types of lists is > backward compatibility. It's part of the history of HTML, not CSS, and it has some justification, since the difference between <ol> and <ul> can be regarded as structural, in some sense at least. As a more practical point, when CSS support is "off", <ol> will appear (probably) with numbers and <ul> with bullets, so it makes difference which one you have used. One reason to switch off CSS support is that many pages look better that way, or at least more readable. Another reason to turn off _author_ style sheets is that special rendering situations, like very small displays, may require special browser or user style sheets, and in practice you might then need to switch off all or most of author styling. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ ______________________________________________________________________ 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/
