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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
-
Brett Parker -
Chris G -
Greg Thomas -
Jan T. Kim -
samwise -
Steve