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: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:11:49 +0300
Message-ID: <5003A295.1030302@cs.tut.fi>
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
2012-07-16 5:36, Ian Yang wrote:

> Imo, <ul> means the order of the items is unimportant, not browsers can
> render the items in any order.

But if the order is unimportant, there still _is_ an order. Being 
unordered would be something else. And what would it matter to indicate 
the order as important if you only do that in markup, without affecting 
rendering, search engines, etc., at all? It's like invisible ink in a 
book. If it is somehow relevant to say that the order is unimportant, 
you have to, well, *say* it (in words).

The only reason for this "unordered" list idea (a list is by definition 
unordered; a set, or a multiset, is not) is the willingness to keep <ul> 
and <ol> in HTML (it would be very impractical to omit one of them) 
without admitting that they were introduced, and are being used, simply 
for bulleted and numbered lists. So this resembles the confusing play 
with words regarding <i> and <b>.

Yucca
Received on Monday, 16 July 2012 05:12:19 GMT

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