- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:20:07 +0200
- To: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>, "Geoffrey Sneddon" <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:51:20 +0200, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk> wrote: > Geoffrey Sneddon wrote: >> The definition for |ol| and |ul| says that they represent an "ordered >> list of items" and an "unordered list of items". It doesn't say in what >> way they are ordered. Should the definition be refined to something >> like "A list where the order of the items has meaning."? > > How is that better than "an ordered list" ? The latter is idiomatic, > widely used and widely understood; your re-casting may be preferable > in terms of Basic English, but I am not convinced that technical > specifications can or should be expressed in B.E. The distinction is that <ol> isn't necessarily appropriate just because the items come in a particular order. They may for instance be sorted alphabetically but the order doesn't actually matter. I think the spec needs to be clearer on this point. http://www.autisticcuckoo.net/archive.php?id=2007/08/07/lists discusses this issue. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 17:21:15 UTC