469,306 Members | 1,958 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,306 developers. It's quick & easy.

Bold numbers in ordered lists

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
Aug 22 '08 #1
33 11176
In article
<Pi*******************************@s5b004.rrzn.u ni-hannover.de>,
Andreas Prilop <pr********@trashmail.netwrote:
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?
There is a perfectly good way that uses the semantic equivalent of an
ordered list, a two column table, with which your requirement has a
simple solution.

--
dorayme
Aug 22 '08 #2

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>
ol { counter-reset: item }
ol li { display: block }
ol li:before {
content: counter(item) ". ";
counter-increment: item;
font-weight: bold;
color: red;
}
Nice - and it degrades well for CSS deficient browsers, too.

--
Berg
Aug 22 '08 #3
jACK meinte:
The colors showed in Firefox, but didn't show in IE 6
Jonathan already mentioned "you-know-who"...

Gregor
--
http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum
Aug 23 '08 #4
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008, dorayme wrote:
There is a perfectly good way that uses the semantic equivalent of
an ordered list, a two column table,
I don't know what you mean by "semantic equivalent" - but I certainly
cannot get automatic numbering in a table.

--
Solipsists of the world - unite!
Aug 25 '08 #5
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?
Aug 25 '08 #6
Andreas Prilop wrote:
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?
Oh, don't expect it to work in IE!

Firefox, SeaMonkey, Opera... the browser must support css counters.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Aug 25 '08 #7
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Andreas Prilop wrote:
>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?

Oh, don't expect it to work in IE!

Firefox, SeaMonkey, Opera... the browser must support css counters.
Also Konqueror 3.5.8 so I assume Safari will also work.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Aug 25 '08 #8
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>Andreas Prilop wrote:
>>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?

Oh, don't expect it to work in IE!

Firefox, SeaMonkey, Opera... the browser must support css counters.

Also Konqueror 3.5.8 so I assume Safari will also work.
It does.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
I used to be schizophrenic, but we're all right now.
Aug 25 '08 #9
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Also Konqueror 3.5.8 so I assume Safari will also work.
Certainly my Safari (Under Windows). Not IE8 beta though.

--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk
Aug 25 '08 #10
On 25 Aug, 16:50, Andreas Prilop <prilop4...@trashmail.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.
Aug 25 '08 #11
Roy A. wrote:
On 25 Aug, 16:50, Andreas Prilop <prilop4...@trashmail.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.
Aug 25 '08 #12
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
Aug 25 '08 #13
On 25 Aug, 21:17, Ed Mullen <e...@edmullen.netwrote:
Roy A. wrote:
On 25 Aug, 16:50, Andreas Prilop <prilop4...@trashmail.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.

Aug 26 '08 #14
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
Aug 26 '08 #15
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
Aug 26 '08 #16
In article <ba***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.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
Aug 26 '08 #17
dorayme wrote:
In article <ba***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.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
Aug 26 '08 #18
In article <a9**************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
dorayme wrote:
In article <ba***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.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
Aug 26 '08 #19
dorayme wrote:
In article <a9**************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
>dorayme wrote:
>>In article <ba***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.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
Aug 27 '08 #20
In article <8a**************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
dorayme wrote:
In article <a9**************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
dorayme wrote:
In article <ba***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:

dorayme wrote:

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.
You forget to add:

"and this is glaringly obvious to everyone but you (dorayme)".

Here's a possibility that understandably escapes your mention: that you
(and many others) are operating with an essentially false or
dilettantish idea of what it is for two things to mean the same.

I will think of a way to take you through my thoughts as best as I can,
the previous clearly not having done the job.

--
dorayme
Aug 27 '08 #21
On 2008-08-26, dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote:
[...]
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.
[...]

I think it's sort of OK to call an ordered list a kind of table. But
it's only possible to judge it in the very dim light available.

A table is really a visual thing as everyone knows. Then people started
saying you can only use an HTML table for abstract "tabular data". But
we can only imagine what "tabular data" really is.

People have their own definitions but none of them are authoritative.

Really it comes down to choosing the element that fits best out of the
choice available.

Since there is an OL element that's usually going to be a better choice
for an ordered list than a TABLE.

And if you do use a TABLE instead because it's easier to style it the
way you want you could be accused of using tables for presentation,
which is the dreaded thing everyone is trying to avoid.

It's much easier to answer the practical questions "why are you using a
table?" and "why aren't you using an OL?" than "is your data tabular?".

Your argument that the numbers are like a corresponding column so that
we can look up the third thing to do on the list etc. does work but how
is that different from the argument that a linter is a kind of
validator?
Aug 27 '08 #22
dorayme wrote:
In article <a9**************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
>dorayme wrote:
>>In article <ba***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.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.

OK, now, Jonathan where were we? O yes, you think the number in an
ordered list can never be the same as data in a column in a table? And
you have an argument. Your argument begins with a few particularly
distracting ungrammatical sentences and others later. I am having
trouble understanding you. I have spent 15 minutes thinking of
charitable interpretations and come up with only obviously acceptable
and uncontroversial things that I start with myself.
Sorry should get someone else to proof my messages before posting.
Numbers in a list are only significant if they represent procedural
step, but that may not aways be the case. See my other reply...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Aug 27 '08 #23
In article <98***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
Numbers in a list are only significant if they represent procedural
step, but that may not aways be the case.
This is either false or ambiguous or both.

--
dorayme
Aug 27 '08 #24
dorayme wrote:
In article <98***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
>Numbers in a list are only significant if they represent procedural
step, but that may not aways be the case.

This is either false or ambiguous or both.
How so?

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Aug 27 '08 #25
In article <f1***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
dorayme wrote:
In article <98***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
Numbers in a list are only significant if they represent procedural
step, but that may not aways be the case.
This is either false or ambiguous or both.
I forgot to add "or vague" and change "or both" to "or all three"
How so?
The "that" could refer to either the fact of significance or the
canvassing of the possibility of the conditional not being true.

The vaguesness refers to the possibility of some other meaning that is
not clear and is neither of the ones mentioned above.

And the falsity refers to there being cases of ordered lists that do not
literally represent a procedure to be followed.

--
dorayme
Aug 27 '08 #26
In article <do**********************************@web.aioe.org >,
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote:
The crucial case is between r and q (see discussion with Ben). I claim
they are not *significantly* different and if they are what is the
difference?
O and I should have added "and if there is a difference, what is its
true significance".

--
dorayme
Aug 27 '08 #27
dorayme wrote:
In article <do**********************************@web.aioe.org >,
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote:
>The crucial case is between r and q (see discussion with Ben). I claim
they are not *significantly* different and if they are what is the
difference?

O and I should have added "and if there is a difference, what is its
true significance".
Not sure how to explain it any more clearly, but essentially list data
is *linear* or *sequential* whereas tabular data is "2-dimensional" with
a positional relationship in rows and columns. If you cannot grasp the
concept I am afraid you are doom to confusion ;-)

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Aug 28 '08 #28
In article <48***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
dorayme wrote:
In article <do**********************************@web.aioe.org >,
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote:
The crucial case is between r and q (see discussion with Ben). I claim
they are not *significantly* different and if they are what is the
difference?
O and I should have added "and if there is a difference, what is its
true significance".

Not sure how to explain it any more clearly, but essentially list data
is *linear* or *sequential* whereas tabular data is "2-dimensional" with
a positional relationship in rows and columns. If you cannot grasp the
concept I am afraid you are doom to confusion ;-)
The insinuation that you know something about this matter that I don't
would be more impressive if you showed the slightest explained agreement
with any of the detailed things I have said. This would show how far
along what road you travel with me and exactly the point at which you
diverge.

Your suggestion that I am doomed if I don't grasp what satisfies you and
others should be beneath you.

In any case, your analysis of what is dooming me is clearly wrong
because I accept that cells in a well made html table have a
relationship to each other across rows and sometimes across columns and
sometimes across both. I also accept that list data items are
sequential.

You continue to ignore the crucial and relevant matters and keep
repeating the simple simon met a pieman stuff which I start with rather
than dispute. Anyway, thanks for trying to contribute to the discussion.

--
dorayme
Aug 28 '08 #29
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Not sure how to explain it any more clearly, but essentially list data
is *linear* or *sequential* whereas tabular data is "2-dimensional"
with a positional relationship in rows and columns. If you cannot
grasp the concept I am afraid you are doom to confusion ;-)
Tabular data is, generally speaking, n-dimensional, though in web authoring
and styling we are mainly interested in the cases n = 1 and n = 2. For n =
1, tabular data reduces to a list (linear, sequential structure), which can
be described within the HTML table concept as a table (n = 2) with one
column only, or with one row only. A list can, of course, also be presented
using <ulor <ol(or <diror <menuto get pointlessly wild) or even just
a sequence of elements, like <divelements or <pelements. In practice,
people tend to select the markup on presentational grounds rather than
anything else. If you want bullets, you use <ul>, etc., even though you
_could_, in theory at least, use any of the markup approaches on some
logical or other grounds and then use CSS for styling.

The suggestion to use a table for bolding numbers of list items means that a
list is replaced by a 2-dimensional table, with numbers in one column and
list items in another. I don't see why this would be unsound, even though
it's in practice a workaround when one just wants a list with bold numbers.
After all, the more importance the numbers have - i.e. the more they
describe essential properties of the data, as opposite to being merely
running numbers that could be replaced e.g. by a, b, c, ... or even by
bullets - the more we can argue that they _should_ be explicit, present in
the actual data, and not just generated by presentational tools like CSS.

By the way, the case n = 3 is something that could be presented using CSS,
in a sense. You could have a collection of similar tables, positioned at the
same place, with different z-index values. This would of course mean that
only one "slice" would be visible at any given time, and switching between
"slices" would have to be handled outside CSS. (Well, :hover could be used
to switch between _two_ slices on mouseover.)

Yucca

Aug 28 '08 #30
On 2008-08-28, dorayme wrote:
....
(How on earth does Chris Johnson indent things so well in his posts, I
wanted the last two paras indented but could not quickly see a simple
way)
GNU emacs text-mode with auto-fill-mode. I indent the first line
and lines automatically wrap with the same indentation.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Aug 29 '08 #31
In article <52**************************@TEKSAVVY.COM>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote:
On 2008-08-28, dorayme wrote:
...
(How on earth does Chris Johnson indent things so well in his posts, I
wanted the last two paras indented but could not quickly see a simple
way)

GNU emacs text-mode with auto-fill-mode. I indent the first line
and lines automatically wrap with the same indentation.
So... OK. If I get to need to do this more, I might have to see about
getting a package suitable for Mac X.

--
dorayme
Aug 29 '08 #32
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrites:
In article <52**************************@TEKSAVVY.COM>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote:
>On 2008-08-28, dorayme wrote:
...
(How on earth does Chris Johnson indent things so well in his posts, I
wanted the last two paras indented but could not quickly see a simple
way)

GNU emacs text-mode with auto-fill-mode. I indent the first line
and lines automatically wrap with the same indentation.

So... OK. If I get to need to do this more, I might have to see about
getting a package suitable for Mac X.
Are you aware of Aquamacs?

<http://www.aquamacs.org>

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Aug 29 '08 #33
In article <m1************@dot-app.org>,
Sherm Pendley <sp******@dot-app.orgwrote:
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrites:
In article <52**************************@TEKSAVVY.COM>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote:
On 2008-08-28, dorayme wrote:
...
(How on earth does Chris Johnson indent things so well in his posts, I
wanted the last two paras indented but could not quickly see a simple
way)

GNU emacs text-mode with auto-fill-mode. I indent the first line
and lines automatically wrap with the same indentation.
So... OK. If I get to need to do this more, I might have to see about
getting a package suitable for Mac X.

Are you aware of Aquamacs?

<http://www.aquamacs.org>
Thanks, I did just see about this when spending a few mins looking up
about what Chris was saying.

--
dorayme
Aug 29 '08 #34

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.