HTML question - how to create a sequence of varying indents
I want to lay a list of items out as follows:- item1 item2 item3 item4 item5 Wnat's the simplest way of doing this in HTML? I'm doing it in a CGI script (i.e. the CGI will be writing the text) so the simpler the better really. -- Chris Green
On 12/10/2007, Chris G <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
I want to lay a list of items out as follows:-
item1 item2 item3 item4 item5
Wnat's the simplest way of doing this in HTML?
<ul><li>item1 <ul><li>Item2 <ul><li>item3 <ul><li>item4 <ul><li>item5 </ul></ul></ul></ul></ul> Greg
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 11:34:52AM +0100, Greg Thomas wrote:
On 12/10/2007, Chris G <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
I want to lay a list of items out as follows:-
item1 item2 item3 item4 item5
Wnat's the simplest way of doing this in HTML?
<ul><li>item1 <ul><li>Item2 <ul><li>item3 <ul><li>item4 <ul><li>item5 </ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
I presume that works because that's a set of nested <ul>, I'd need to set things so they didn't have any marker character and I'd need to reduce the indent but that's not too difficult. Thank you. -- Chris Green
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 11:34:52AM +0100, Greg Thomas wrote:
On 12/10/2007, Chris G <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
I want to lay a list of items out as follows:-
item1 item2 item3 item4 item5
Wnat's the simplest way of doing this in HTML? <ul><li>item1 <ul><li>Item2 <ul><li>item3 <ul><li>item4 <ul><li>item5 </ul></ul></ul></ul></ul> Except you didn't close the <li>s Steve
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 02:04:12PM +0100, Steve wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 11:34:52AM +0100, Greg Thomas wrote:
On 12/10/2007, Chris G <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
I want to lay a list of items out as follows:-
item1 item2 item3 item4 item5
Wnat's the simplest way of doing this in HTML? <ul><li>item1 <ul><li>Item2 <ul><li>item3 <ul><li>item4 <ul><li>item5 </ul></ul></ul></ul></ul> Except you didn't close the <li>s
And the nesting was awful. Something like: <ul> <li>item1 <ul> <li>item2 <ul> <li>item3 <ul> <li>item4</li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> And for the styling: ul { list-style: none; margin: 0 0 0 0.5em; padding: 0; } Should do it. Cheers, Brett.
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 03:08:19PM +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 02:04:12PM +0100, Steve wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 11:34:52AM +0100, Greg Thomas wrote:
On 12/10/2007, Chris G <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
I want to lay a list of items out as follows:-
item1 item2 item3 item4 item5
Wnat's the simplest way of doing this in HTML? <ul><li>item1 <ul><li>Item2 <ul><li>item3 <ul><li>item4 <ul><li>item5 </ul></ul></ul></ul></ul> Except you didn't close the <li>s
And the nesting was awful.
Something like: <ul> <li>item1 <ul> <li>item2 <ul> <li>item3 <ul> <li>item4</li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul>
And for the styling: ul { list-style: none; margin: 0 0 0 0.5em; padding: 0; }
Yes, I'd worked out the css bit. The layout of the HTML is somewhat academic as it's machine generated 'dynamic' code. -- Chris Green
On 15/10/2007, Steve <steve@iffirewouldfall.com> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 11:34:52AM +0100, Greg Thomas wrote:
<ul><li>item1 <ul><li>Item2 <ul><li>item3 <ul><li>item4 <ul><li>item5 </ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
Except you didn't close the <li>s
</li> tags, like </body> and </html> tags, are not required for valid HTML 4. Of course, it's a different story for XHTML, but that's a completely different kettle of fish. Greg
Greg Thomas wrote:
</li> tags, like </body> and </html> tags, are not required for valid HTML 4. Of course, it's a different story for XHTML, but that's a completely different kettle of fish.
But what you're forgetting is that HTML 4 is totally lame and not metal. XHTML ftw as it's actually vaguely consistent and sensible. HTML 4 ftl because iexplore seems to like it, it's /so/ last decade and reminds me of scrolling marquees and <blink> Therefore, my answer stands because imho, "there can be only one" and it's XHTML. </nazi> Steve
On 19/10/2007, Steve <steve@iffirewouldfall.com> wrote:
Therefore, my answer stands because imho, "there can be only one" and it's XHTML.
</nazi>
Steve
Shame, I thought that we'd given up on that. Isn't the rest of the WWW's future going to be based on HTML 5? </troll> ;) Peter.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 11:44:39AM +0100, samwise wrote:
On 19/10/2007, Steve <steve@iffirewouldfall.com> wrote:
Therefore, my answer stands because imho, "there can be only one" and it's XHTML.
</nazi>
Steve
Shame, I thought that we'd given up on that. Isn't the rest of the WWW's future going to be based on HTML 5?
Nah - it's going to go back to being plain text, readable and accessable... -- Brett Parker
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 12:23:27PM +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 11:44:39AM +0100, samwise wrote:
On 19/10/2007, Steve <steve@iffirewouldfall.com> wrote:
Therefore, my answer stands because imho, "there can be only one" and it's XHTML.
</nazi>
Steve
Shame, I thought that we'd given up on that. Isn't the rest of the WWW's future going to be based on HTML 5?
Nah - it's going to go back to being plain text, readable and accessable...
... unless you're accessing an UTF-16 plain text using the wrong editor ... ;-) Best regards, Jan -- +- Jan T. Kim -------------------------------------------------------+ | email: jtk@cmp.uea.ac.uk | | WWW: http://www.cmp.uea.ac.uk/people/jtk | *-----=< hierarchical systems are for files, not for humans >=-----*
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 12:23:27PM +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 11:44:39AM +0100, samwise wrote:
On 19/10/2007, Steve <steve@iffirewouldfall.com> wrote:
Therefore, my answer stands because imho, "there can be only one" and it's XHTML.
</nazi>
Steve
Shame, I thought that we'd given up on that. Isn't the rest of the WWW's future going to be based on HTML 5?
Nah - it's going to go back to being plain text, readable and accessable...
Absolutely! :-) That's why I'm using reStructuredText so much now. -- Chris Green
participants (6)
-
Brett Parker -
Chris G -
Greg Thomas -
Jan T. Kim -
samwise -
Steve