On the contrary, Timwi,
Lists of the structure I cited are *common as mud*. Do you think I am a complete fool and just made something up? Shall I spell out a real-world example for you?
Consider a list of water catchment basins, which in turn lists the major and minor streams belonging to each one.
* Basin 1 ** major stream A ** Major stream B *** minor stream C *** minor stream D *Basin 2 *** minor stream E *** minor stream F * Basin 3 ** major stream G *** minor stream H
Note Basin 2 which has no major streams. What do you want the user to do? Go out and dig a new river so that you can have nice idealogically pure lists?
Got it? Or do you need another one?
* Cockatoos *** Cockatiel, Nymphicus hollandicus ** Black cockatoo group *** Red-tailed Black Cockatoo, Calyptorhynchus banksii *** Glossy Black Cockatoo, Calyptorhyncus lathami *** Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo, Calyptorhyncus funereus ** White cockatoo group *** Gang-gang Cockatoo, Callocephalon fimbriatum *** Galah, Eolophus roseicapilla *** Sulphur-crested Cockatoo, Cacatua galerita
Examine the Cockateil (second line above). It doesn't belong to a sub-group
No, this is definitely not "desired", and I'm not even sure it's possible to do in all browsers; HTML is not a formatting mark-up language. It's a document structure mark-up language.
It definately *is* desired, chum.
This is *not* HTML, it is wiki markup It works just fine cross-browser (yes, including that perennial problem child Internet Explorer).
In any case, HTML does not exist to serve narrow ideaalogical purposes. It exists to serve *users*, in this case, users attempting to describe the real world. It is particularly important to remember the real purpose of wiki markup, because (unavoidably) the wiki markup language takes away the ability of the user to format pages using more flexible tools such as word processing software, HTML, or pen and paper.
Now, can we get back to the bug that I brought up and stop spouting nonsense?
Tannin (Tony Wilson)