Semantic of a nested list?

[Andrew]

Hi,

In a page that I have only just started writing (only a paragraph or 2
there) I have produced an ordered list nested within a definition list:

http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/bibliophile.html

Now I am happy that this use of lists demonstrates my meaning adequately,
surely an important consideration, but is it a semantically correct way
of conveying this meaning?

Quite frankly I think it would be unnecessarily cumbersome to nest
another <dd> and then style the element to produce numbers before each
item. I believe that what I have written is a compromise between good
syntax and good communication.

Any thoughts?

Thanks for any opinions and guidance,

Andrew

 

[Andrew]

Hi,

In a page that I have only just started writing (only a paragraph or 2
there) I have produced an ordered list nested within a definition list:

http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/bibliophile.html

Now I am happy that this use of lists demonstrates my meaning adequately,
surely an important consideration, but is it a semantically correct way
of conveying this meaning?

Quite frankly I think it would be unnecessarily cumbersome to nest
another <dd> and then style the element to produce numbers before each
item. I believe that what I have written is a compromise between good
syntax and good communication.

Any thoughts?

Hi again,

I know I have compromised on lists before: in my page on the Iliad:

http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/homer.html

I decided against making an ol h3 in the css and remained with <strong>
for what were basically headings in lists.(after some debate in alt.html)
I am not sure if I am concerning myself needlessly with such questions

Andrew

 

[John Hosking]

In a page that I have only just started writing (only a paragraph or 2
there) I have produced an ordered list nested within a definition list:

http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/bibliophile.html

Now I am happy that this use of lists demonstrates my meaning adequately,
surely an important consideration, but is it a semantically correct way
of conveying this meaning?

Quite frankly I think it would be unnecessarily cumbersome to nest
another <dd> and then style the element to produce numbers before each
item. I believe that what I have written is a compromise between good
syntax and good communication.

Well, /that/ part of your page looks fine to me, but I don't understand
this:
<ol>
<li> <a href="index.html">Andrew's Corner</a> : </li>
</ol>
You've knowingly styled this <ol> with list-style:none so no number
shows up. Isn't then an hx header or just a div (which you already have)?

I also see a bunch of empty elements (<p></p> <h2></h2> <p> </p>) down
below. If you're worried about worrying too much, you should worry more
about the markup *besides* the stuff you're worried (asking) about!

Anyway, I don't know how you'd "style the element to produce numbers
before each item" in a nested <dd>. I would think the alternative to
what you've chosen would be something manual, like:

<dd>A term for... <br>
1. <em>Biblos</em> : In Phoenician times... <br>
2. <em>Philew</em> : An Ancient Greek ... </dd></dl>

I think I like your current way better.

 

[Andrew]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:04:50 +0100, John Hosking wrote:

snip>>>>>>>

Well, /that/ part of your page looks fine to me, but I don't understand
this:
<ol>
<li> <a href="index.html">Andrew's Corner</a> : </li>
</ol>
You've knowingly styled this <ol> with list-style:none so no number
shows up. Isn't then an hx header or just a div (which you already have)?

This is a very simple navigation that I am implementing on the site,
based _very_ loosely on Jukka Korpela's site (he does not use <ol> for
this). For example:

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/wwwold.html

I thought a styled list made sense for this purpose and I also thought an
ordered list made sense as there is a hierarchy of links involved.

I also see a bunch of empty elements (<p></p> <h2></h2> <p> </p>) down
below. If you're worried about worrying too much, you should worry more
about the markup *besides* the stuff you're worried (asking) about!

My apologies for displaying this page as an incomplete one: I have simply
placed these empty elements ready for material as I write the page

Anyway, I don't know how you'd "style the element to produce numbers
before each item" in a nested <dd>. I would think the alternative to
what you've chosen would be something manual, like:

<dd>A term for... <br>
1. <em>Biblos</em> : In Phoenician times... <br>
2. <em>Philew</em> : An Ancient Greek ... </dd></dl>

I think I like your current way better.

Thanks very much for your thoughts!

Andrew

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Andrew:

I have produced an ordered list nested within a definition
list:

http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/bibliophile.html

The inner list contains explanations of words from which the term has been
constructed. Using <ol> vs. <ul> is mostly a matter of taste. I don't think
it's important to indicate the order by numbers, but admittedly the order
itself is significant.

Now I am happy that this use of lists demonstrates my meaning
adequately, surely an important consideration, but is it a
semantically correct way of conveying this meaning?
Yes.

Quite frankly I think it would be unnecessarily cumbersome to nest
another <dd> and then style the element to produce numbers before each
item. I believe that what I have written is a compromise between good
syntax and good communication.

Logically, you _could_ use definition list markup for the words "biblos" and
"philew" (should be "phileo" or "phileō", by the way - using "w" for
omega is a wrong transliteration based on mere visual similarity).

But I don't think you _should_. Using <dl> markup is more or less pointless
due to widespread abuse and sloppy specifications. And it's questionable
whether those words are _terms_ in this context. Rather, they are just
words.

Moreover, styling the elements to produce numbers isn't very effective,
since IE doesn't support the CSS tools you would need.

 

[Andrew]

Logically, you _could_ use definition list markup for the words "biblos" and
"philew" (should be "phileo" or "phileō", by the way - using "w" for
omega is a wrong transliteration based on mere visual similarity).

Thanks for pointing out a rather amateurish mistake To further
demonstrate my ignorance can I ask why there appear to be 2 different
ways of doing this: ō and ō? I gather that one is a numerical
code and one is a hex code but beyond this I am lost. I realise that I am
demonstrating a gulf of ignorance

Thanks for your trouble,

Andrew

 

[Ben C]

Thanks for pointing out a rather amateurish mistake To further
demonstrate my ignorance can I ask why there appear to be 2 different
ways of doing this: ō and ō? I gather that one is a numerical
code and one is a hex code but beyond this I am lost. I realise that I am
demonstrating a gulf of ignorance

You are aware that decimal 333 and hexadecimal 14D are the same number?

So I suppose it comes down to preference which you use. I know someone
who had spent too long with computers and accidentally wrote a cheque in
base 16 once. It was for 100 pounds and he put 64.

 

[dorayme]

I know someone
who had spent too long with computers and accidentally wrote a cheque in
base 16 once. It was for 100 pounds and he put 64.

!

 

[John Hosking]

So I suppose it comes down to preference which you use. I know someone
who had spent too long with computers and accidentally wrote a cheque in
base 16 once. It was for 100 pounds and he put 64.

Could have been worse; he could have converted it to *binary*...

 

[Andrew]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 18:03:57 -0600, Ben C wrote:

snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You are aware that decimal 333 and hexadecimal 14D are the same number?

snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hi Ben,

I am now

Andrew

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Sub titulo "Re: Semantic of a nested list?"
scripsit Andrew:

- - why there appear to be 2 different
ways of doing this: ō and ō? I

Actually there are even more ways: ō as well as all these with the
semicolon omitted, which is allowed in HTML 4.01 under certain conditions,
though not advisable). Oh, and ō and ō in HTML 4.01, but XML and
hence XHTML is case sensitive for the "x" though not for hexadecimal digits.
If your mind whirls, do _not_ tune your mind; the absurdity is in the
reality, in the specifications.

ō and ō are character references using the Unicode code number of
the character, in decimal and in hexadecimal; "x" stands for "hexadecimal",
following one of the odd traditions in computerese. They are completely
identical in meaning, but support to the decimal format is marginally
better. (I think the margin here consists mainly of Netscape 4, which might
be still used by some odd people.)