Hi,
03.07.2003 13:57:00, erik_moeller(a)gmx.de (Erik Moeller) wrote:
Re the HTML
for the TOC: Why don't you use ol and li?
Because we need to do manual numbering anyway, to keep the numbers
consistent with those used by the auto-numbering for headers (which is
a user preference).
Will this numbering ever be different from that of ol/li?
Also, it was easier to get all the margins right and
avoid unnecessary
whitespace this way.
Not really. You are plugging a style="margin-bottom:0px;" on loads of
divs inside the table. It would suffice to give the table a class="toc"
and then specify in the stylesheet:
.toc LI { margin: 0; }
and the left margins would be handled automatically by nested <ol>s.
The major reason I want to use <ol> is because if you have a really long
heading, it will render like this:
1 This is a really
long heading
I think it would do a *lot* to readability if it were rendered li-style:
1. This is a really
long heading
Of course you're going to tell me such long headings will never occur,
but take a look at
http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be for a near-
plausible example (switch to 800x600).
Feel free to play around this with Skin.php
Unfortunately, the way this is constructed now (with Indent and Unindent
functions) already assumes unstructuredness (non-nestedness). I would
have to restructure that...
the current solution works fine and probably takes
less space.
"works fine" isn't always the best excuse hackishness ;-)
As for table vs. div: Ah, I see.
Please could you at least change it so that the number isn't part of the
link? Remember links should have meaningful and usable link text. I like
to follow links by typing the first few characters of their link text.
It is easier to type letters than numbers.
Greetings,
Timwi