Ordered list syntax.
public at quillio.com
Sat Mar 27 19:09:43 EST 2004
On Mar 27, 2004, at 5:40 PM, Már Örlygsson wrote:
> Another problem with relying on external stylesheets to provide
> schemes and counter start-points for ordered lists, is what happens
> when the
> HTML document is viewed with CSS turned off (In simple browsers, on
> devices, in RSS readers, as syndicated content published offsite or in
> print, etc. etc.) Then the document lacks important information.
Yep, but those problems all flow from the W3C mistake. If it's out
there, it's out there.
Hold on a minute ...
Okay, this surprised me. Per the W3C validator, <ol> type and start
attributes validate *even as XHTML 1.1 Trans*.
Evidently, 1.1 left the Transitional door open. I'd thought that 1.0
Trans was the end. Wasn't it supposed to be?
Note that this markup fails as HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Strict and
XHTML 1.1 Strict. On the Transitional side, I sure didn't think it
survived to XHTML 1.1. Looks like it has.
So I guess that as long as MD makes these doctype stipulations, type
and start attributes can be safely used and the CSS2 issue
side-stepped. Just can't use Strict. With luck, the attribute
deprecations will be re-thought (along with all of XHTML 2.0). List
numbering is certainly not presentational. If it were, lists shouldn't
be block-level elements.
Folks would have to be told of the doctype limitations, though.
P.O. Box 24
Saratoga Springs, NY, USA 12866
More information about the Markdown-discuss