W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: (Un)Ordered lists

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
Message-ID: <op.txe6ftgzidj3kv@hp-a0a83fcd39d2>

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:25 UTC