Problem with list-style-type IE6

[Andrew]

Hi,

I am slowly putting a single page together on the Ancient Greek
language:
http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/ancient_greek.html

and thought it would be nice to style an ordered list with Greek
letters:

ol { list-style-type: lower-greek;}

This works well in Firefox but is ignored by IE6. I tryed styling the
list items instead:

ol li { list-style-type: lower-greek;}

but still nothing + Google was no help. Can anybody help me out here?

Thanks,

Andrew.

PS The list is next to the 'real' Homer on the page

 

[Rik]

Hi,

I am slowly putting a single page together on the Ancient Greek
language:
http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/ancient_greek.html

and thought it would be nice to style an ordered list with Greek
letters:

ol { list-style-type: lower-greek;}

This works well in Firefox but is ignored by IE6. I tryed styling the
list items instead:

ol li { list-style-type: lower-greek;}

According to quirksmode, browsersupport for list-style-types:
decimal (Moz, IE Win, Op, IE Mac, Saf, iCab)
decimal-leading-zero (Moz, Op, iCab)
lower-roman (Moz, IE Win, Op, IE Mac, Saf, iCab)
upper-roman (Moz, IE Win, Op, IE Mac, Saf, iCab)
lower-latin (Moz, Op, Saf, iCab)
upper-latin (Moz, Op, Saf, iCab)
lower-greek (Moz, Op, Saf, iCab)<-------------- No MSIE
lower-alpha (Moz, IE Win, Op, IE Mac, Saf, iCab)
upper-alpha (Moz, IE Win, Op, IE Mac, Saf, iCab)

Unfortunately.
Cross-browser options seem to be: none, decimal, lower-roman, upper-roma,
lower-alpha, upper-alpha.

Grtz,

 

[Andrew]

According to quirksmode, browsersupport for list-style-types:
decimal (Moz, IE Win, Op, IE Mac, Saf, iCab)
decimal-leading-zero (Moz, Op, iCab)
lower-roman (Moz, IE Win, Op, IE Mac, Saf, iCab)
upper-roman (Moz, IE Win, Op, IE Mac, Saf, iCab)
lower-latin (Moz, Op, Saf, iCab)
upper-latin (Moz, Op, Saf, iCab)
lower-greek (Moz, Op, Saf, iCab)<-------------- No MSIE
lower-alpha (Moz, IE Win, Op, IE Mac, Saf, iCab)
upper-alpha (Moz, IE Win, Op, IE Mac, Saf, iCab)

Unfortunately.
Cross-browser options seem to be: none, decimal, lower-roman, upper-roma,
lower-alpha, upper-alpha.

Grtz,

Hi,

Thanks very much for that! I guess IE users will only get to see the
default list-type then, other browsers get the cream

Thanks again,

Andrew.

 

[Rik]

Hi,

Thanks very much for that! I guess IE users will only get to see the
default list-type then, other browsers get the cream

Tssk, I both applaud that statement, and yet disapprove of it Although
it's often rather tempting to put an image on your site saying "If you had a
decent browser, it could look like this", I still like my sites to be as
similar as possible in various browsers.

Thanks again,

Well, thank Peter-Paul Koch, who went through the trouble of testing it all,
I'm just echoing

Grtz,

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

I still like my sites to be as similar as possible in various
browsers.

Then you are setting yourself a goal which is not merely pointless,
but actively counter-productive.

The end users care, at the first priority, about the content that
you're making available to them, and at the second priority, that it
looks presentable without having to wait *too* long for the furniture
to arrive.

Hardly any of them (*not even* those who use several browsers) are
going to display the same page in different browsers and deduct points
for any merely cosmetic differences.

Even "looking the same" on Firefox and on Firefox is not necessarily a
good idea, if their respective users have widely different needs
(visual acuity etc.).

And one of the main aims of the WWW was to present the same content
across a wide range of presentation situations. Sure, the
presentation situations that we had then were quite unlike the ones
that we have today, but the principle is the same.

 

[Rik]

Then you are setting yourself a goal which is not merely pointless,
but actively counter-productive.

The end users care, at the first priority, about the content that
you're making available to them, and at the second priority, that it
looks presentable without having to wait *too* long for the furniture
to arrive.

Hardly any of them (*not even* those who use several browsers) are
going to display the same page in different browsers and deduct points
for any merely cosmetic differences.

Even "looking the same" on Firefox and on Firefox is not necessarily a
good idea, if their respective users have widely different needs
(visual acuity etc.).

And one of the main aims of the WWW was to present the same content
across a wide range of presentation situations. Sure, the
presentation situations that we had then were quite unlike the ones
that we have today, but the principle is the same.

You've got a point.
However, if I take on project, the client usually wants a certain layout,
which I have to match as much as possible in standard browsers. So that's
what I'll try. Not meaning pixel-perfect, but as near as possible.

There are limits to this offcourse:
1. I never, ever, use CSS hacks: workarounds are OK, hacks are ugly, and
unreliable.
2. The site has to be scalable for users using larger fonts.
3. The page has to make sense with no CSS applied (I thoroughly like Opera's
options here).

When making a page, my list in order of importance:
1. Must be valid HTML & CSS (duh..).
2. All main functionality must work in pure HTML (allow for no javascript,
no flash, etc).
3. Has to be semantically, logicial HTML.
4. Has to be readable in any browser (not text disappearing by incorrect
sizes/margins etc.).
5. Will keep the use of presentational HTML (such as <img>'s across the top)
to a bare minimum, if at all.
6. Has to make sense without CSS (which is actually derived from point 3
offcourse).
7. Has to look/feel the same in all main browsers.

Offcourse, let's not forget that CSS is not only for layout in browsers, but
can also be used for print, handheld devices, text-to-speech
whatjamacallit's etc.

In this case, when faced with the options to style a list, I'd choose the
option that will make it generally look the same in most major browsers.

Grtz,

 

[Nikita the Spider]

Tssk, I both applaud that statement, and yet disapprove of it Although
it's often rather tempting to put an image on your site saying "If you had a
decent browser, it could look like this", I still like my sites to be as
similar as possible in various browsers.

Rik,
I like that too, and I also agree that it isn't very nice to make users
feel bad about the browser they're using. However, IMO isn't one of the
goals of a well-designed site that it will be /useable/ in every browser
rather than visually similar? If IE6 users to my site find it less nice
than those using AOMB (Any Other Modern Browser), that's just the same
as if someone was using a mobile browser or a screen reader to browse my
site. Does that analogy sound reasonable to you?

In short, I think that if the OP uses IE conditional comments to give a
different stylesheet to IE <= 6 that defines alternative list bullets,
he's not doing anyone a disservice.

Cheers

 

[Rik]

In short, I think that if the OP uses IE conditional comments to give
a different stylesheet to IE <= 6 that defines alternative list
bullets,
he's not doing anyone a disservice.

Normally I'd say it's no problem.

But what if 2 users discuss a portion of the site, and one user sais: look
at point gamma?
As long as it's not information it's alright.
In this case, an ordering in the list CAN be seen as information
unfortunately.

Grtz,

 

[Nikita the Spider]

Normally I'd say it's no problem.

But what if 2 users discuss a portion of the site, and one user sais: look
at point gamma?
As long as it's not information it's alright.
In this case, an ordering in the list CAN be seen as information
unfortunately.

Oops, I missed the fact that it was an ordered list. My mistake. Thanks
for the correction.

Cheers

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

However, if I take on project, the client usually wants a certain layout,
which I have to match as much as possible in standard browsers.

First of all, let's be clear that this has become a subthread about
generalities, and not specifically about "list-style-type IE6".

So that's what I'll try. Not meaning pixel-perfect, but as near as
possible.

That's what worries me. In so many pages I meet on the world-wild
web, I see bucket-loads of javascript that's trying desperately to
force exactly the same visual result no matter what the user may need.
As often as not, disabling JS results in a better-behaved page, aside
from all that extra JS clutter that was downloaded from the server and
then not used. In a minority of cases, the author has sabotaged this
flexibility, and when JS is disabled they'll do a NOSCRIPT that tells
the user that the page *needs* javascript, despite the fact that it
really doesn't. It's all so unnecessary and pointless.

Seems to me that if the sponsor of the site insists on close adherence
to their prescribed visual display, no matter what the consequences,
then the web designer had roughly three options:

* sell themselves cheap, do what the sponsor demands no matter how
silly it may be, take the money and run. I think those people are
typically called web monkeys.

* sell themselves dear, try to educate the sponsor into the nature of
the web, and reach a compromise between what will best meet the
sponsor's needs in web terms, and what the sponsor misguidedly says
they want.

http://www.westciv.com/style_master/house/good_oil/not_paper/ may be
useful, particularly its analogy with the mistakes of early TV as
"radio with pictures". Here we have "the web as printed brochures".
In both cases the mistake is failing to capitalise on the strengths of
the new medium, and cripple it by insisting that it mimic something
which it never aimed to be.

* When a sponsor insists on their concept despite your advice,
walk away.

It's no secret that I'm an academic, and don't have to deal with this
on an everyday basis. But I've got enough contacts in the commercial
world who say that those who charge for their expertise, and walk away
from projects that won't take their advice, are by no means short of
work, whereas web monkeys who do their sponsor's every bidding are
working their fingers to the bone and getting paid peanuts.

tot ziens

 

[Rik]

First of all, let's be clear that this has become a subthread about
generalities, and not specifically about "list-style-type IE6".

It's way off topic indeed.

That's what worries me. In so many pages I meet on the world-wild
web, I see bucket-loads of javascript that's trying desperately to
force exactly the same visual result no matter what the user may need.
As often as not, disabling JS results in a better-behaved page, aside
from all that extra JS clutter that was downloaded from the server and
then not used. In a minority of cases, the author has sabotaged this
flexibility, and when JS is disabled they'll do a NOSCRIPT that tells
the user that the page *needs* javascript, despite the fact that it
really doesn't. It's all so unnecessary and pointless.

It is, and IMO javascript should never be used for styling, a page has to
look the same with & without. Javascript is nice for some shortcuts that
would otherwise require a submit/trip to the server and back. And that's all
I use it for. It's debatable, but I'm very satisfied if I have good working,
user friendly pages without a drop of js. A NOSCRIPT telling the user they
need javascript is the same as admitting you don't know what the hell you're
doing.

I won't overdo it either in the similarity, if a border/margin/linebreak is
different in several browsers, I don't really care as long as they're small.
What I do care about is the way the site feels. Color, style etc. A company
that takes itself seriously has somewhat of a house-style (what's the word
here? I don't think this bas tranlation from dutch is what I mean..), that
also will have to be incorporated in the website.

In this particular case, lower-greek or bullets or 2 very different things.
Maybe not from a coding standpoint, but certainly for design and the feel of
a site.

Seems to me that if the sponsor of the site insists on close adherence
to their prescribed visual display, no matter what the consequences,
then the web designer had roughly three options:

* sell themselves cheap, do what the sponsor demands no matter how
silly it may be, take the money and run. I think those people are
typically called web monkeys.

* sell themselves dear, try to educate the sponsor into the nature of
the web, and reach a compromise between what will best meet the
sponsor's needs in web terms, and what the sponsor misguidedly says
they want.

http://www.westciv.com/style_master/house/good_oil/not_paper/ may be
useful, particularly its analogy with the mistakes of early TV as
"radio with pictures". Here we have "the web as printed brochures".
In both cases the mistake is failing to capitalise on the strengths of
the new medium, and cripple it by insisting that it mimic something
which it never aimed to be.

* When a sponsor insists on their concept despite your advice,
walk away.

I'd think I'll fall into the second category. I'll do my best, but I won't
sacrifice validity/semantics/functionality for it.

It's no secret that I'm an academic, and don't have to deal with this
on an everyday basis. But I've got enough contacts in the commercial
world who say that those who charge for their expertise, and walk away
from projects that won't take their advice, are by no means short of
work, whereas web monkeys who do their sponsor's every bidding are
working their fingers to the bone and getting paid peanuts.

I think the causality is somewhat reversed here. People who actually know
what they are doing and are good at it, will not take on projects that won't
work, will work badly or are evil... The 'monkeys' as you call them are
usually not as good in what they do, and so will have less serious, genuine
projects. And they'll also have to pay rent, zo they'll jump through more
hoops just to get some assignments.

Grtz,

 

[Neredbojias]

It is, and IMO javascript should never be used for styling, a page has
to look the same with & without.

If css is actually used for presentational aspects only and is really
dispensible as it is supposed to be then javascript can abet or even
replace it (within its capabilities) to an equal degree of validity.

 

[Rik]

To further the education of mankind, "Rik"


If css is actually used for presentational aspects only and is really
dispensible as it is supposed to be then javascript can abet or even
replace it (within its capabilities) to an equal degree of validity.

Excuse me? You're saying: if we actually can seperate content from
presentation, we must jam it in the scripting functionality... Which is as
bad or even worse (in my opinion the second).

I'm one of these pesky little dudes who has javascript turned of most of the
time, with IMO good reason. That doesn't mean I don't want to see a nice
page. If your page then becomes unreadable, I'm BTW more likely to turn of
the CSS then turn the javascript on.

Grtz,

 

[Neredbojias]

Excuse me? You're saying: if we actually can seperate content from
presentation, we must jam it in the scripting functionality... Which
is as bad or even worse (in my opinion the second).

You're excused. That's not what I'm saying. I _am_ saying that javascript
_can_ be used to enhance presentation just as equitably as can css or any
other styling method. "Jamming things in scripting functionality' has
nothing to do with it except to denigrate the language.

I'm one of these pesky little dudes who has javascript turned of most
of the time, with IMO good reason.

Uh, me, too. Dimwits have abused javascript in the past and continue to do
so to a lesser extent today. Nevertheless, the doesn't make javascript any
less viable a styling method.

That doesn't mean I don't want to
see a nice page. If your page then becomes unreadable, I'm BTW more
likely to turn of the CSS then turn the javascript on.

Well, it's certainly a matter of degree, but if css/styling does, indeed,
matter that much, it's hardly optional then, is it?

 

[Rik]

To further the education of mankind, "Rik"


You're excused. That's not what I'm saying. I _am_ saying that
javascript _can_ be used to enhance presentation just as equitably as
can css or any other styling method. "Jamming things in scripting
functionality' has nothing to do with it except to denigrate the
language.


Uh, me, too. Dimwits have abused javascript in the past and continue
to do so to a lesser extent today. Nevertheless, the doesn't make
javascript any less viable a styling method.

But a vary unreliable one because of the number of people that have it
turned of.

Well, it's certainly a matter of degree, but if css/styling does,
indeed, matter that much, it's hardly optional then, is it?

I refer you to my earlier comment

"3. Has to be semantically, logicial HTML.
6. Has to make sense without CSS (which is actually derived from point 3
offcourse)."

Grtz,

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

You're excused. That's not what I'm saying. I _am_ saying that javascript
_can_ be used to enhance presentation just as equitably as can css or any
other styling method. "Jamming things in scripting functionality' has
nothing to do with it except to denigrate the language.


Uh, me, too. Dimwits have abused javascript in the past and continue to do
so to a lesser extent today. Nevertheless, the doesn't make javascript any
less viable a styling method.

Yes and companies that artificially extended JavaScript beyond its
sandbox to save a buck on tech support and software upgrades and pack is
into a OS tools that masquerades as a web browser facilitating such
abuse....

JavaScript can be a very useful component to a webpage, HTML for
structure of content, CSS for presentation, JavaScript for user
interaction and events, server-side (Perl, PHP, ASP...) for dynamic
content... I'd like to be put back in its box, and if you want to do
some system stuff over a network, then require some app be installed and
stop doing through my web browser...

 

[Neredbojias]

But a vary unreliable one because of the number of people that have it
turned of.

By all reasonable accounts, that's around 10%. People are stupid. Even
Bush got a majority...

I do expect the percentage to go up in time, however, but also expect
j/s to be "tempered" by the browsers a bit more which will counteract
that trend. In any event, I think j/s is here to stay.

I refer you to my earlier comment

"3. Has to be semantically, logicial HTML.
6. Has to make sense without CSS (which is actually derived from point
3 offcourse)."

Did you hear about the new xhtml3, referring to the "progressive"
heading thing? Oh, it's wonderful (according to some people.)

Yeah, right. Semantic markup is pretty much a myth. The only
"semantics" that count for anything are how one piece of information is
separated from another and what emphasis is placed on each. Everything
else is tripe including almost all of the relational aspects so dearly
beloved of the pseudo-grammaticists.

 

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, "Jonathan N. Little"

Yes and companies that artificially extended JavaScript beyond its
sandbox to save a buck on tech support and software upgrades and pack
is
into a OS tools that masquerades as a web browser facilitating such
abuse....

No comments on Active-X? That's the real pisser.

JavaScript can be a very useful component to a webpage, HTML for
structure of content, CSS for presentation, JavaScript for user
interaction and events, server-side (Perl, PHP, ASP...) for dynamic
content... I'd like to be put back in its box, and if you want to do
some system stuff over a network, then require some app be installed
and stop doing through my web browser...

I don't think I have any argument over all that. A browser belongs under
its user's control. I don't like having some idiot doing wierd things via
my interface, either. However, I do like using j/s to enhance the styling
and functionality of a page in a constructive way, and that's what I do.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

To further the education of mankind, "Jonathan N. Little"


No comments on Active-X? That's the real pisser.

DIE DIE DIE! How's that! Actually MS's perversion of JavaScript, JScript
can link in the with COM and do some pretty scary things!

I don't think I have any argument over all that. A browser belongs under
its user's control. I don't like having some idiot doing wierd things via
my interface, either. However, I do like using j/s to enhance the styling
and functionality of a page in a constructive way, and that's what I do.

Agree, the resizing windows and the hiding of browser components is not
desired, but form element pre-checking and interactive form element not
requiring a server call is an efficient and desirable use.

 

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, "Jonathan N. Little"

DIE DIE DIE! How's that! Actually MS's perversion of JavaScript,
JScript can link in the with COM and do some pretty scary things!

Don't forget, though, that po' li'l ol' Microsoft needed some way to
interface with the convolutions of their system and give the registry some
validity as well. We really shouldn't be too hard on the close-minded
because it's probably a disease like herpes.

Agree, the resizing windows and the hiding of browser components is
not desired, but form element pre-checking and interactive form
element not requiring a server call is an efficient and desirable use.

Javascript is good for styling, too. Css doesn't do everything and j/s
makes a nice compliment to it (-the usual caveats blah blah...)