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: Edward Lass <elass@goer.state.ny.us>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 13:31:23 -0400
Message-Id: <s29db8d1.006@mail.goer.state.ny.us>
To: <www-html@w3.org>

If you did that, I would just put my numbering into character data.

Why? Because the WD does not making CSS support a requirement for
XHTML2-conformant user agents. Therefore, a user with styles disabled
should still receive all of my content.

- Ed.

>>> Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> 6/1/2005
12:32:47 PM >>>

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>



This message has been scanned by the NYS GOER WebShield.
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2005 17:31:24 UTC

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