EOL without using

**Jim Dabell** · Jul 20 '05, 09:21 PM

Re: EOL without using 

Haines Brown wrote:
[color=blue]
> I understand that is marginal in CSS, and so am looking for a
> substitute for the EOL character. I've failed in both approaches and
> seek advice.
>
> The first thing I tried was to use the unicode EOL characer, which is
> 000A. I figured with was 10 in decimal notation, and so tried:
>
> line 1 line 2
>
> No go. What was wrong with my thinking here?[/color]

000A is whitespace, and is normalised according to normal HTML rules.

[color=blue]
> The second approach was to use a list.[/color]

For what? Why you want to start a new line is pretty important in how you
go about doing it.

[color=blue]
> Since menu is deprecated, I
> tried:
>
> ul.menoo { list-style-image: none; }
>
> <ul class="menoo">
> <li>line 1</li>
> <li>line 2</li>
> </ul>
>
> I still get the default dot (galeon browser).[/color]

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/generate.html#l ists>

The list-style-image property applies to list-items, not the lists
themselves. Furthermore, you want to set the list-style-type property to
'none' (the default is usually 'disc', which is the dot you are seeing).

--
Jim Dabell

**Brian** · Jul 20 '05, 09:21 PM

Re: EOL without using 

Haines Brown wrote:[color=blue]
>
> ul.menoo { list-style-image: none; }[/color]

ul.menoo { list-style-type: none; }

With the caveat in the other response: use the correct markup first,
then apply the css.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

**Harlan Messinger** · Jul 20 '05, 09:21 PM

Re: EOL without using 

"Haines Brown" <brownh@teufel. hartford-hwp.com> wrote in message
news:87u12wx7ex .fsf@teufel.har tford-hwp.com...[color=blue]
>
> I understand that is marginal in CSS,[/color]

Just curious--what do you mean by that?

**Haines Brown** · Jul 20 '05, 09:21 PM

Re: EOL without using 

"Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@co mcast.net> writes:
[color=blue]
> "Haines Brown" <brownh@teufel. hartford-hwp.com> wrote in message
> news:87u12wx7ex .fsf@teufel.har tford-hwp.com...[color=green]
> >
> > I understand that is marginal in CSS,[/color]
>
> Just curious--what do you mean by that?[/color]

Lie and Bos, Cascading Style Sheets, pg. 322-323. The context is a
discussion of HTML elements that are used to convey style and lack
content. BR is one such element.

However, they then qualify this by saying that BR is borderline
between style and content:

"Also borderline is BR. Recall that it is an empty element that
represents a hard line break; a line break will be placed where it is
used no matter how the rest of the paragraph around it is aligned or
justified. . . . It really should have been a character instead of an
element, but the intended character is not part of the Latin-1
character set. . . . With the advent of support for the Unicode
character set. . .BR could have been replaced by. . .the line
separator character. But people were used to BR, so it stuck."

I wrote without thinking regarding the construction of a list without
markers, and the correction does what I want. I often must try my best to
reproduce the appearance of a hard copy document, and menus show up
for a variety of purposes, such as the lines of someone's address.

A side question on this. Since the menu list is deprecated, is it
OK now to use it as a name, such as in <li class="menu">.. .?

--
Haines Brown
brownh@hartford-hwp.com
kb1grm@arrl.net

https://www.hartford-hwp.com

**Haines Brown** · Jul 20 '05, 09:21 PM

Re: EOL without using 

Jim Dabell <jim-usenet@jimdabel l.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> Haines Brown wrote:
>[color=green]
> > I understand that is marginal in CSS, and so am looking for a
> > substitute for the EOL character. I've failed in both approaches and
> > seek advice.
> >
> > The first thing I tried was to use the unicode EOL characer, which is
> > 000A. I figured with was 10 in decimal notation, and so tried:
> >
> > line 1 line 2
> >
> > No go. What was wrong with my thinking here?[/color]
>
> 000A is whitespace, and is normalised according to normal HTML rules.[/color]

Indeed, that's appears to be what happened when I used it. I find it
difficult sometimes to track down unicode characters. Here's what I
did in this case; where was my mistake?

UTF_&_BOM-FAQ_utf_bom.htm l

@@@ The Unicode Standard 3.2
@@@+ Draft U32M020305.lst
...

000A <control>
= LINE FEED (LF)
= new line (NL), end of line (EOL)
...

0085 <control>
= NEXT LINE (NEL)

0085 (decimal notation 133) gave me an elipsis. I'm obviously doing
something wrong here.

--
Haines Brown
brownh@hartford-hwp.com
kb1grm@arrl.net

https://www.hartford-hwp.com

**Andreas Prilop** · Jul 20 '05, 09:21 PM

Re: EOL without using 

Haines Brown <brownh@teufel. hartford-hwp.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> 0085 <control>
> = NEXT LINE (NEL)
> 0085 (decimal notation 133) gave me an elipsis. I'm obviously doing
> something wrong here.[/color]

No. It's the browsers that all treat ISO-8859-1 as Windows-1252.

**Haines Brown** · Jul 20 '05, 09:21 PM

Re: EOL without using 

Andreas Prilop <nhtcapri@rrz n-user.uni-hannover.de> writes:
[color=blue]
> Haines Brown <brownh@teufel. hartford-hwp.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > 0085 <control>
> > = NEXT LINE (NEL)
> > 0085 (decimal notation 133) gave me an elipsis. I'm obviously doing
> > something wrong here.[/color]
>
> No. It's the browsers that all treat ISO-8859-1 as Windows-1252.[/color]

Andreas. I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that 000A is the
correct character for EOL, but existing browsers don't know how to
handle the character and revert to the non-standard Windows character
assignments? Even though the web page has <meta
http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />?

--
Haines Brown
brownh@hartford-hwp.com
kb1grm@arrl.net

https://www.hartford-hwp.com

**Alan J. Flavell** · Jul 20 '05, 09:21 PM

Re: EOL without using 

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Haines Brown wrote:
[color=blue]
> 0085 <control>
> = NEXT LINE (NEL)
>
> 0085 (decimal notation 133) gave me an elipsis. I'm obviously doing
> something wrong here.[/color]

Well, sort-of. Unicode characters 0080 to 009F are control
characters, and excluded from use in HTML (and, as far as I know, from
XHTML).

Your browser is compounding the confusion by interpreting them as if
you meant them to be windows-1252, but this behaviour is undefined in
HTML (subtle gag: "undefined" , not "illegal"), and forbidden by XML
(i.e rejected by an XML-conforming validator).

In fact, the W3C validator nowadays rejects such usage in HTML as well
as in XHTML, which is pragmatically probably a good thing, although
pedantically it's wrong. See previous discussions of the topic if you
really want to know more.

N.B don't confuse the Document Character Set (which is always
iso10646/unicode in HTML4 as in XHTML) with the external character
coding. The external character coding can indeed be windows-1252 (if
the client accepts it, via their accept-charset header if any), but
those characters then map into quite different parts of the Unicode
character space.

**Alan J. Flavell** · Jul 20 '05, 09:21 PM

Re: EOL without using 

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Haines Brown wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > No. It's the browsers that all treat ISO-8859-1 as Windows-1252.[/color]
>
> Andreas. I'm not sure I follow you.[/color]

Basically, this is simple: but for someone confused about the issues,
it seems unbelievably complex: if you want to understand it, you're
going to have to do some background reading. No offence intended, but
shooting off random questions only reveals that you won't be able to
understand the answers.
[color=blue]
> Are you saying that 000A is the correct character for EOL,[/color]

Not only is he saying it, but it's true. However, you don't seem to
understand what HTML/XHTML specifications say should be done with it.
[color=blue]
> but existing browsers don't know how to handle the character[/color]

On the contrary, they understand very well what to do with it, but it
seems that you don't. Consult your nearest copy of an (X)HTML
specification.
[color=blue]
> and revert to the non-standard Windows character assignments?[/color]

No: that was in relation to your misuse of a character in the U+008x
range.
[color=blue]
> Even though the web page has <meta
> http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />?[/color]

That's irrelevant in theory; in practice it's a dodge to help NN4 into
the only mode in which it correctly deals with HTML4 i18n.

Please, either give up now, or (preferably) get yourself up to speed
on the HTML4 character model (documented quite well in the HTML4.01
spec) which underlies all versions of HTML from RFC2070 through HTML4
to XHTML/anything. Questions of detail are pointless until you have a
mental model adequate to understand the answers.

I repeat, this is not intended to be offensive, but no more than a
statement of the way things are, AFAICS.

**Andreas Prilop** · Jul 20 '05, 09:21 PM

Re: EOL without using 

Haines Brown <brownh@teufel. hartford-hwp.com> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> No. It's the browsers that all treat ISO-8859-1 as Windows-1252.[/color]
>
> Andreas. I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that 000A is the
> correct character for EOL,[/color]

I think we were speaking about chars x0080 to x009F.
[color=blue]
> but existing browsers don't know how to
> handle the character and revert to the non-standard Windows character
> assignments? Even though the web page has <meta
> http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />?[/color]

At least they do this for "charset=IS O-8859-1" and for &#number;
expressions. I'm no longer sure for "charset=UT F-8". Look here:
<http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp/controls.html>
Neither Mozilla 1.5 nor Internet Explorer 6.0 show any "Windows
graphic characters". Which browser showed you an ellipsis?

**Andreas Prilop** · Jul 20 '05, 09:21 PM

Re: EOL without using 

"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@ph.gla .ac.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Unicode characters 0080 to 009F are control
> characters, and excluded from use in HTML (and, as far as I know, from
> XHTML).[/color]

Yes.
[color=blue]
> Your browser is compounding the confusion by interpreting them as if
> you meant them to be windows-1252,[/color]

Which browser does this sort of things?
<http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp/controls.html>

**Alan J. Flavell** · Jul 20 '05, 09:21 PM

Re: EOL without using 

On Fri, Jan 16, Andreas Prilop inscribed on the eternal scroll:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Your browser is compounding the confusion by interpreting them as if
> > you meant them to be windows-1252,[/color]
>
> Which browser does this sort of things?[/color]

I didn't know, not till I tried (see below). I was only trying to
make sense of the hon. Usenaut's observations.
[color=blue]
> <http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp/controls.html>[/color]

Wrong test. displays as ellipsis on at least one WWW browser,
as well as on the notorious operating system component. Your URL
points to a document that doesn't seem to contain any &#number;
numerical character references, so it doesn't actually test that
issue.

--
Procrastination gives you something to look forward
to putting off tomorrow. -spotted on ahbou

**Andreas Prilop** · Jul 20 '05, 09:21 PM

Re: EOL without using 

"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@mail.c ern.ch> wrote:
[color=blue]
> References: <87k73ry7qp.fsf @teufel.hartfor d-hwp.com>
>[color=green]
>> <http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp/controls.html>[/color]
>
> Wrong test. displays as ellipsis on at least one WWW browser,[/color]

In <news:87k73ry7q p.fsf@teufel.ha rtford-hwp.com> I read

| 0085 (decimal notation 133) gave me an elipsis. I'm obviously doing
| something wrong here.

I see nothing of or … .

**Alan J. Flavell** · Jul 20 '05, 09:22 PM

Re: EOL without using 

On Sat, Jan 17, Andreas Prilop inscribed on the eternal scroll:
[color=blue]
> In <news:87k73ry7q p.fsf@teufel.ha rtford-hwp.com> I read
>
> | 0085 (decimal notation 133) gave me an elipsis. I'm obviously doing
> | something wrong here.[/color]

Indeed, and in a context that was referring back to:

|> > The first thing I tried was to use the unicode EOL characer, which
|> > is 000A. I figured with was 10 in decimal notation, and so tried:
|> >
|> > line 1 line 2

i.e the context was the use of &#number; to represent a character
whose decimal value was known.
[color=blue]
> I see nothing of or … .[/color]

I see no mention of a character encoding, either, but I *do* see the
remark "decimal notation 133". I deduced that the most likely
explanation was that the hon. Usenaut had not tried to represent this
U+0085 control character as an actual coded character, but used an
ampersand notation. (OK, I mentioned and I should probably
have said … instead).

And it actually fits the reported observations, too, nicht wahr?

cheers

EOL without using <br />

EOL without using <br />

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment