W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2012

Re: [whatwg] Suggest making <dt> and <dd> valid in <ol>

From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:34:09 +0300
Message-ID: <50012F01.7030305@cs.tut.fi>
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
2012-07-14 10:46, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Ian Yang <ian.html@gmail.com> wrote:
>> By seeing such contents, we usually code it using definition list (<dl>).
>> At first, I was thinking the same idea. But then I realized that stages in
>> a life cycle should be regarded as ordered contents.
>
> I would recommend not over-thinking the matter. Otherwise soon you
> will start wrapping your <p>s in <ol>/<li>s too to ensure they stay in
> the correct order.

Indeed. The <ol> element is no more and no less ordered than <ul> or any 
other element. Many HTML tag names are misleading.

> (The specification points this out as well: "The order of the list of
> groups, and of the names and values within each group, may be
> significant.")

That's actually a questionable statement there, since it may make the 
read ask whether the order of sub-elements is *generally* significant. 
It's as questionable as it would be to write "The order of successive p 
elements may be significant" or "The order of successive section 
elements may be significant".

Yucca
Received on Saturday, 14 July 2012 08:34:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:09 GMT