Since the format is based on XML, and its kissing cousin HTML has tags to
handle lists (<LI><UL><OL><MENU><DIR> etc.) why are we re-inventing the
wheel?
They have attributes which get around the problem Jeff noted by letting you
split the list into pieces (SEQNUM, TYPE.)
Pete McAveney (list lurker and future volunteer)
P.S. Hi all
Jeff Hostetler <jeff@abisource.com> wrote:
At 12:46 PM 7/21/99 +0100, Caolan McNamara wrote:
>
>On 21-Jul-99 Paolo Molaro wrote:
>>What's wrong with the "obviously correct" and simple example below?
"obvious" is in the eye of the beholder... :-)
>>
>><list type=bullet>
>><item><p>stuff 1</p><p>second para</p></item>
>><item><p>stuff 2</p></item>
>></list>
my concern with this is how it structually interleves with tables.
for example, consider:
<list>
<item><p>stuff 1</p></item>
<table><row>
<cell><item><p>stuff 2</p></item></list></cell>
</row></table>
this will cause xml to barf. if you push the </list> until after
the end of the table, a list later in the table will appear as a
second level list and won't indent right.
also, it looked like m$word allows multiple lists to be interleved.
(not that i care about this feature (allowing a bullet and number
list to be interleved in the flow), we might have to deal with it
on import).
>This mechanism is roughly how msword handles lists ( doing it this
>way makes it easier to convert id guess :-) )
Caolan, could you elaborate on what you've learned of m$word lists
and stuff. i guess i always considered my proposal to be a strawman
until we had sufficient feedback from those with insight into word files....
thanks
jeff
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1