# Alternative (1) ordered list syntax **URL:** \ **Category:** Spec\ **Created:** [October 1, 2014, 2:26am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/alternative-1-ordered-list-syntax/742 "2014-10-01T02:26:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![tin-pot](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/tin-pot/32/810_2.png) [@tin-pot](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/tin-pot)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2016, 8:46pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/alternative-1-ordered-list-syntax/742/41 "2016-01-07T20:46:38Z")
**Geee** , I didn’t know that even CSS 2.1 had a `counters()` function (I only used and knew the `counter()` function). Look at [this](http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607/generate.html#scope "CSS 2.1, section 12.4.1"): > The ‘`counters()`’ function generates a string _composed of all of the counters_ with the same name that are in scope, separated by a given string. > > The following style sheet numbers nested list items as “1”, “1.1”, “1.1.1”, etc. > > ``` > OL { counter-reset: item } > LI { display: block } > LI:before { content: counters(item, ".") " "; counter-increment: item } > > ``` However, concerning > It seems that W3C (or at least one of their editors) thinks (1) could be a legitimate marker. I doubt that the W3C or their editors implies or wants to imply any assertion about “typographical legitimacy” with the examples they include in specification (drafts). In particular, the example above is probably not meant to indicate that using “1”, “1.1”, “1.1.1”, etc. was generally a _recommended_ or even _sensible_ way of labeling nested list items (though it actually _could_ be, eg in a TOC represented in HTML as a `
    `, for example). ---
    **Author:** ![Crissov](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/crissov/32/1455_2.png) [@Crissov](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/Crissov)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 9:30am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/alternative-1-ordered-list-syntax/742/42 "2016-01-08T09:30:38Z")
    > [@tin-pot](#): > > By the way: what you referenced as “CSS”, seems to be in the CSS Counter Styles Level 3 Editor’s Draft, which is a “fairly stable” module in the current snapshot “Working Group Note” of CSS 3, but it is not in the—current at this time—CSS 2.1 recommendation `@counter-style` is in the [CSS Counter Styles Level 3 **Candidate Recommendation**](http://www.w3.org/TR/css-counter-styles-3/#the-counter-style-rule). Nowadays (say, since 2010) a W3C CR, especially if released by the CSS WG, is much more mature and well-tested than most RECs in the past. ---
    **Author:** ![chrisalley](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/chrisalley/32/906_2.png) [@chrisalley](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/chrisalley)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2016, 12:06pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/alternative-1-ordered-list-syntax/742/43 "2016-01-13T12:06:37Z")
    > [@tin-pot](#): > > Depending on which HTML definition you look at, there might be no variations in the style of unordered lists represented at all, as this is purely a presentational choice. Let alone when converting CommonMark to non-HTML document types and document formats like LaTeX, OpenDocument, DITA, and so on. > > Thus it is clearly “out of scope” for the CommonMark specification to decree which particular “item marker styles” can or can not be represented in the rendered, “final”, output document (from a post included in a web forum, to a printed article or book). As a consequence, what (any version of) HTML provides or can represent should not be the ultimate arbiter on what can be expressed in the CommonMark input syntax, but only some rough guideline. There is a problem referring to those list items (from outside of the list) if they’re considered purely presentational. The use of type attribute implies that the list type has meaning beyond further styling - even if that styling overwrites the initial presentation (but the designer probably shouldn’t override it if it is referred to). So, with regard to just the list type (not styling) I’d say we’re still in scope for the CommonMark specification. I want to be able to talk about list item (b) in another part of the document and simultaneously create that that list item using `b)`. [Previous page](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/alternative-1-ordered-list-syntax/742.md?page=2)