Starting ordered lists at numbers other than 1.

[Már Örlygsson]

John Gruber wrote:
> 4.  But `counter-reset` and `counter-increment` aren't supported
>     by any browsers other than Opera. I mean, jesus, it's one thing
>     if IE doesn't support something, but when neither [Mozilla] [2]
>     nor [Safari] [3] support it either, it's pretty much unusable.

ROFL! This is *so* funny!
Like everybody, I always assumed that this funtionality was something 
that all modern browsers *had to* support, since the `start` and `value` 
attributes were depricated years ago by the W3C.


On making Markup's output configurable:
> [...] one could no longer know what output Markdown-formatted text will
> produce unless you also know specifically how a certain Markdown
> installation is configured. I think this would be a big loss.

I don't. ...or rather, I don't think this can be avoided.
The Markdown code is GPLed so we're bound to see someone come up with a 
version that converts Markdown sytax to XHTML 2.0, or whatever markup 
language we'll have a few years from now.

 From the Markdown syntax's point of view the issues of HTML vs. XHTML; 
1.0 vs. 1.1; Strict vs. Transitional; etc. are just a matter of 
presentation. Thats at least how I see it. (IANAL, YMMV, etc. :-)

The Markdown syntax allows me to express myself in a simple, reliable 
way, that produces semantically meaningful results, pretty much 
regardless of what the output markup language is.
(Of course, If I decide to write HTML directly into my Markdown text, 
then I may be causing myself some grief, but that's beside the point.)

...anyway, back to the issue of what to do with funcy ordered lists:


Aaron Swartz wrote:
> I would have no problem with Markdown generating XHTML+value, as Tantek does. Especially if the value part is only triggered when the input document requires it.
[...]
> If people have a problem, they can just not use lists that start at other numbers. But it seems a mistake to change Markdown's syntax permanently because of a transitory mistake.

+1 that, good point, especially since all browsers seem to support it 
(rendering-wise) as  if it were part of XHTML 1.0 Strict and 1.1, as Lou 
  Quillio pointed out earlier today.



-- 
Már Örlygsson
------------------------------
mailto:mar at anomy.net
http://mar.anomy.net