W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > June 2005

Re: ol, ul, nl, dl, oh my! (was Re: [XHTML 2] removal of navigation list element)

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 11:45:27 -0500
Message-ID: <429DE627.2070602@aptest.com>
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
CC: www-html@w3.org

Remember that, to some extent, there is a large user base that we need 
to take care of here. We don't want to start changing the names of 
commonly used elements or attributes without some compelling reason.

Also, this is really about the semantics, not the presentation.  If you 
put stuff in an "ol" list you are saying "the order of these items is 
important, and likely critical to understanding the information".  If 
you put stuff in a "ul" list, you are saying "the order of this stuff is 
what I used when writing the document, but the order is not critical to 
understanding the information".  At least, that is how I think it should 
be interpreted.

Daniel Glazman wrote:

>
> Edward Lass wrote:
>
>> The 2.0 WD says, "Both types of lists [ol and ul] are made up of
>> sequences of list items defined by the li element."  This is true in
>> HTML 4.01 too: "Both types of lists are made up of sequences of list
>> items defined by the LI element (whose end tag may be omitted)."
>
>
> A basic problem is that "both lists" seen above. Why do we still have 
> ol AND ul
> in XHTML?
>
> (a) the names are incorrectly chosen. ul is really not unordered, it is
>     un-numbered. ol is not more ordered than ul, it's just numbered.
> (b) the styles can be controlled by CSS anyway
>
> </Daniel>


-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2005 16:45:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:19:03 UTC