Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Problem with list-style-type IE6

Reply
Thread Tools

Problem with list-style-type IE6

 
 
Andrew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2006
Hi,

I am slowly putting a single page together on the Ancient Greek
language:
http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstron...ent_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
--

Andrew
http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rik
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2006
Andrew wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am slowly putting a single page together on the Ancient Greek
> language:
> http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstron...ent_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,
--
Rik Wasmus


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Andrew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2006
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:45:17 +0200, "Rik" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Andrew wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am slowly putting a single page together on the Ancient Greek
>> language:
>> http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstron...ent_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,


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.
--

Andrew
http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rik
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2006
Andrew wrote:
>>> 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:
>> lower-greek (Moz, Op, Saf, iCab)<-------------- No MSIE
>>
>> 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


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,
--
Rik Wasmus


 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan J. Flavell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2006
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Rik wrote:

> 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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Rik
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2006
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Rik wrote:
>
>> 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.


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,
--
Rik Wasmus


 
Reply With Quote
 
Nikita the Spider
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2006
In article <3da5$44b62cae$8259c69c$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Rik" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > 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.


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

--
Philip
http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rik
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2006
Nikita the Spider wrote:
> 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,
--
Rik Wasmus


 
Reply With Quote
 
Nikita the Spider
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2006
In article <dc28c$44b65835$8259c69c$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Rik" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Nikita the Spider wrote:
> > 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.


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

Cheers

--
Philip
http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan J. Flavell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2006
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Rik wrote:

> 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/...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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
IE6 Garbage Collection and general IE6 slowness problems timothytoe Javascript 4 06-03-2008 05:17 PM
AJAX problem: slow response using IE6 on Win2000 versus IE6 on XP Pugi! Javascript 0 02-05-2007 10:34 AM
IE6 SP1 rendering vs IE6 SP2 rendering Peter Mount HTML 4 01-31-2006 08:01 AM
Bug in IE6 , cant remove ie6 to replace Ockerr Computer Support 2 01-21-2005 04:01 PM
Just one ie6 template that works with ie6!? Ivor O'Connor HTML 4 11-25-2003 09:16 PM



Advertisments