Re: (Un)Ordered lists from Dylan Smith on 2007-08-23 (public-html@w3.org from August 2007)

From: Dylan Smith <qstage@cox.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 23:12:17 -0700
To: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
CC: <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C2F27351.53B2%qstage@cox.net>

on 8/21/07 10:24 AM, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) at P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> Simon Pieters wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I would be very happy for Autistic Cuckoo's clarification to
> appear as a gloss : "A list is an ordered list if changing the
> order of the list items change[s] the meaning of the list as a whole."
> 
> Philip TAYLOR


+1. Short, on point, unambiguous.



Dylan Smith

Received on Thursday, 23 August 2007 06:40:41 UTC