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

(a) the names are incorrectly chosen. ul is really not unordered, it
     un-numbered. ol is not more ordered than ul, it's just numbered.
(b) the styles can be controlled by CSS anyway


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, 7 January 2015 15:06:10 UTC