Bold numbers in ordered lists

[Andreas Prilop]

To get bold numbers in ordered lists, one can write

ol { font-weight: bold }
ol span { font-weight: normal }

<ol>
<li><span>..... .</span></li>
<li><span>..... .</span></li>
</ol>

Is there a better way?

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...Alan.J.Flavell

[Roy A.]

On 25 Aug, 16:50, Andreas Prilop <prilop4...@tra shmail.netwrote :

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

I don't know what you mean by "semantic equivalent" - but I certainly
cannot get automatic numbering in a table.

* * content: counter(item) ": ";

In which browser?

Most, even on cellular phones.

[Ed Mullen]

Roy A. wrote:

On 25 Aug, 16:50, Andreas Prilop <prilop4...@tra shmail.netwrote :

>On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

>>>I don't know what you mean by "semantic equivalent" - but I certainly
cannot get automatic numbering in a table.
content: counter(item) ": ";

In which browser?

Most, even on cellular phones.

Not IE7 nor (I'm fairly sure) IE6.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
I tried sniffing Coke once, but the ice cubes froze the end of my nose.

[Jonathan N. Little]

Steve Swift wrote:

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

>Also Konqueror 3.5.8 so I assume Safari will also work.

Not IE8 beta though.

Not surprised.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Roy A.]

On 25 Aug, 21:17, Ed Mullen <e...@edmullen. netwrote:

Roy A. wrote:

On 25 Aug, 16:50, Andreas Prilop <prilop4...@tra shmail.netwrote :

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
I don't know what you mean by "semantic equivalent" - but I certainly
cannot get automatic numbering in a table.
* * content: counter(item) ": ";
In which browser?

Most, even on cellular phones.

Not IE7 nor (I'm fairly sure) IE6.

Maybe not Internet Explorer Mobile Browser either, but most of the
rest.

[Jonathan N. Little]

dorayme wrote:

Whether you use an ordered list or a table, you are conveying more or
less the same thing.

No not really. A list is a list, with a singular "linear" relationship:
start a 1, then to 2 then to 3...

Whereas a table has a "two-dimensional" relationship where the data is
organized in rank and file, row and column. Where the cross-wise
relationship is significant to the data.

That is what I meant by semantic equivalence. The
advantage of a table is much greater presentational flexibility.

Not sure how a table add more flexibility. Certainly more complexity if
you want to try layouts that deviate from the grid.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Steve Swift]

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

Not sure how a table add more flexibility. Certainly more complexity if
you want to try layouts that deviate from the grid.

Talking of lists, I wrote a CGI webpage specifically for generating
lists of instructions. It's one of the most useful pages I've ever created.

I keep lists such as:

- things I have to take on holiday
- things to do when I get a new CD (there are 13 steps)
- the clocks I have to change when we swap between GMT/BST
- the devices I have to reset after a power failure
- the passwords I have to change regularly

These lists aren't numbered (they are mostly not necessarily sequential)
but they each have a checkbox for each step, so I can keep track of
where I have reached. In this case, tables are handy for keeping the
text on the same line as the checkbox.

--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk

[dorayme]

In article <ba************ *************** @NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@centra l.netwrote:

dorayme wrote:

Whether you use an ordered list or a table, you are conveying more or
less the same thing.

No not really. A list is a list, with a singular "linear" relationship:
start a 1, then to 2 then to 3...

Not really. The relationship between the number of an ordered list item
and the list item itself is one relationship you miss considering. Not
even on your radar it seems. Pity. I admire some of your technical
fireworks. You seem content with dismissive elementary spiels where I am
concerned. Perhaps I deserve nothing better; I can't quite get myself to
believe this yet but maybe I will and should prepare for that day by
boning up on the quickest way to get to The Gap at Sydney Heads... <g>

That is what I meant by semantic equivalence. The
advantage of a table is much greater presentational flexibility.

Not sure how a table add more flexibility.

You forgotten already how you proposed to the OP a smart way of putting
in ordered numbers into a table col with styling... showing one aspect
of flexibility not so easily done with an OL? And there is more that can
be said here but perhaps I should stop, you are unlikely to agree or
even comprehend the least thing I say. Good luck to you Jonathan...

--
dorayme

[Jonathan N. Little]

dorayme wrote:

In article <ba************ *************** @NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@centra l.netwrote:

>dorayme wrote:

>>Whether you use an ordered list or a table, you are conveying more or
less the same thing.

No not really. A list is a list, with a singular "linear" relationship:
start a 1, then to 2 then to 3...

Not really. The relationship between the number of an ordered list item
and the list item itself is one relationship you miss considering.

I would argue that the ordinal numbers is a list are not at all the same
as the data within a table. It is not really the "data" makes little
difference if

1. fee
2. fie
3. foe
4. fum

A) fee
B) fie
C) foe
D) fum

or implied:

* fee
* fie
* foe
* fum

Where as the first column of a table's data is relevant and the
relationship by row and column is significant.

fin | fish | water
foot | dog | land
wing | bird | air

With or without ordinal numbers a tabular data within has a significance
with respect to row column position. It is that organizational
relationship that differentiates it from a list.

Not
even on your radar it seems. Pity. I admire some of your technical
fireworks. You seem content with dismissive elementary spiels where I am
concerned. Perhaps I deserve nothing better; I can't quite get myself to
believe this yet but maybe I will and should prepare for that day by
boning up on the quickest way to get to The Gap at Sydney Heads... <g>

?

>>That is what I meant by semantic equivalence. The
advantage of a table is much greater presentational flexibility.

Not sure how a table add more flexibility.

You forgotten already how you proposed to the OP a smart way of putting
in ordered numbers into a table col with styling... showing one aspect
of flexibility not so easily done with an OL?

What do you mean? I employed the same method using CSS counters. The
flexibly had to do with CSS, the elements involved where irrelevant.

My point was the "features" of a table does not simplify anything. How is:

<table>
<tr><td>fee</td></tr>
<tr><td>fie</td></tr>
<tr><td>foe</td></tr>
<tr><td>fum</td></tr>
</table>
easier than:

<ol>
<li>fee</li>
<li>fie</li>
<li>foe</li>
<li>fum</li>
</ol>

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[dorayme]

In article <a9************ **************@ NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@centra l.netwrote:

dorayme wrote:

In article <ba************ *************** @NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@centra l.netwrote:

dorayme wrote:

[things... that I have no time to seriously answer this morning. Take
that as a mark of respect to your post. Not always something I have.]
I will answer your post later. Obviously, I am not going to get you to
see what I mean by semantic equivalence between an ordered list and a 2
col table easily, you putting up every kind of block from seeing what is
essentially a simple observation of mine.

As with many simple observations as well as not so simple ones, serious
errors can creep in and I would be interested to know if there are such
in my idea. I am saying it is an open question whether I am correct and
I have to identify why (apart from my extreme unpopularity) I only ever
have gotten blank stares online when mentioning it.

There may be some legitimate and respectable way you guys are seeing
things that I am missing. But I never even get the time of day on it.
The OP asks me what I meant. I said. And I gave a link to further
discussion. But the person I address simply does not know what to make
of it, so I better think of a better way of explaining it. Even Ben C
politely declined to discuss it once, and if anyone can understand
anything it is Ben.

Quite often, in my experience, if an idea is so coldly received, it is
because it is communicated in a form that makes it sound simply false or
crazy, there being no handle for the receiver to intelligently discuss
it. Hence your first dismissive response where you repeated so
innocently that a list was a list, one thing after another and a table
was a table, things relating blah blah. I do not blame you.

And I do not blame myself for delaying my response. It was much easier
saying the above than dealing with your arguments and questions. It is
not my fault that clients conspire with each other - I did not know any
of mine knew each other - to land work on my desk at the same time
instead of a gentle staged workload throughout the year! Everyone
conspires against me, I am used to it. <g>

--
dorayme

[Jonathan N. Little]

dorayme wrote:

In article <a9************ **************@ NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@centra l.netwrote:

>dorayme wrote:

>>In article <ba************ *************** @NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@centra l.netwrote:

dorayme wrote:

[things... that I have no time to seriously answer this morning. Take
that as a mark of respect to your post. Not always something I have.]

Ah thanks, um, I think...

>

I will answer your post later. Obviously, I am not going to get you to
see what I mean by semantic equivalence between an ordered list and a 2
col table easily, you putting up every kind of block from seeing what is
essentially a simple observation of mine.

Maybe because they are semantically different might have something to do
with it.
--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com