W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > October 2002

Re: FW: OL needs the start attribute

From: Bertilo Wennergren <bertilow@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 20:14:31 +0200
Message-ID: <3DAEFE07.4000001@gmx.net>
To: "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>

Philip TAYLOR [PC336/H-XP]:

> "Peter Foti (PeterF)" wrote:


> > I agree. If the numbering is considered critical to the
> understanding of the
> > document, then it is content.


> /Prima facie/, I agree;  but how then would you propose marking
> up such a list?


In XHTML as it is now there is no other option than to use "ul", and
take care of the numbering yourself.

This is of course paradoxical. Totally unordered lists are "ul". Lists
that have order, but where it's not all that important how the that
ordering is presented, get "ol" (perhaps with some CSS suggestions). But
lists that are so strictly ordered that the details of that order, and
the numbers etc. that indicate it, are essential, get "ul". That kind of
leads to the conclusion that "ol" is a failure...

>  Does this suggest that (X)HTML need be
> extended to accommodate a third class of list, in which
> both sequence number and text are explicitly specified,
> rather along the lines of a but with different implied
>
> default presentation rules ?


Either that, or "ol" could be expanded with attributes etc. that make it
possible to specify all the ordering details in XHTML, not in CSS (it
would be a must for conforming user agents too implement these details
fully).

Or "ol" could be dropped altogether. Then perhaps "ul" could be expanded
with an attribute that states whether the ordering is important or not,
while numbers etc. are specified in the content, or in CSS, as the
author wishes.

-- 
Bertilo Wennergren <bertilow@gmx.net> <http://www.bertilow.com>
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2002 14:12:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:53 GMT