- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 18:36:50 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5754
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WONTFIX
--- Comment #3 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2008-06-14 18:36:50 ---
Please keep to one issue with bug, that will allow individual issues to be more
easily tracked and will prevent things from falling through the cracks.
As to these problems though, I think they're not really big issues. List
semantics in HTML are really simple compared to almost any other list structure
markup I've seen, and authors clearly have few problems using them -- lists are
among the most-used elements in HTML. Indeed, even tables, which are far more
complicated, get used a lot, so I think optimising these features for ease of
use would be optimising in the wrong place.
The amount of structure provided by the three main kinds of lists (ol/ul/dl) is
quite satisfactory for most needs; like with anything, they don't provide all
the different options but they are good enough for most purposes, which is what
we want. We could add things like mixing <li>s and <dt>s but in practice the
parsing aspects preclude this being done usefully, and frankly I think this
would complicate things, and, as you noted earlier, we don't want things more
complicated for no good reason.
Regarding why we have three list structures, it's mostly historical. At this
point the cost of changing it would outweigh the benefits, especially since
we'd have to keep the three existing structures anyway.
--
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 18:37:24 UTC