Hi,
I meant <ul>, and I too agree that semantically the list seems more sound. Thanks.
C On Monday, June 28, 2004, at 05:05 PM, Mordechai Peller wrote:
ckimedia wrote:
When styling a group of links one can simply change the display of the a:link and a:visited state to display block, making a simply line of links into a list. What is the advantage of using a <ol> for links as opposed to the aforementioned, if any?
<ul> is actually more common, and usually the better, more logical, choice. Besides giving more hooks for CSS, it connects the links together semantically. As far as <ol> versus <ul> is concerned, the answer to that is a separate discussion which has nothing to do with links.
*****************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*****************************************************
*****************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*****************************************************
