[Bug 5754] List elements content model issues

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5754





--- Comment #1 from Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>  2008-06-14 10:57:49 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> * list semantics are unnecessarily complicated for authors in that minor
> differences in type warrant completely different list elements which mostly
> exist due to a presentational heritage

That's a very subjective statement and seems to be completely unsupported by
any evidence.  I would argue that the concept of ordered and unordered lists
are not presentational in nature, and from an authoring perspective, providing
separate elements for numbered and bulleted lists is very easy, and has worked
well for years.

>  * authors cannot mix definition list items with non definition list items a
> the same hierarchical level 

Please explain what use case you are trying to address.

>  * lists are inherently ordered and in static HTML necessarily so (why three
> separate list structures then)

Because the difference between them is whether or not the order is significant
to the meaning of the list.  Consider the difference between, for example, a
list of ingredients needed to bake a cake, and a list of the steps needed to
make it.  The order of the former is irrelevant. As long as all ingredients are
available, the cake can be made. But for the latter, the order is relevant for
many of the steps.

> (see http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ListContentModelImprovements for evolving
> solution proposals)

I note that there is no related email discussion on the mailing list for this
issue.  Please avoid raising issues in here which have not even had any
discussion on the mailing list.  I don't think it's appropriate to simply copy
and paste all the issues recorded in the wiki to here, since we want to make
this useful, not let it be flooded with noise like the wiki was.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Saturday, 14 June 2008 10:58:24 UTC