W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > April 2011

[Bug 12492] In the article element definition, the nested article exemple should use <ol>

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:34:09 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1QAPUf-0000vs-Fc@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #2 from Olivier Gendrin <olivier.gendrin@gmail.com> 2011-04-14 16:34:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> <ol> isn't the only source of ordering semantics in markupódocument order is
> itself semantic. (You can't reorder the <p> elements in an article without
> destroying meaning, and the same goes for comments.)

So why bother with <ol> ? IMHO, <ol> indicates a strong importance to the
content order, <p> indicates a weak importance, and <ul> indicated no
importance at all (I can remove some <p> in articles without loosing too much
data/ideas -- that is what is done when resuming a book in school, I can't
remove an item into a <ol> without changing the result).

And in the case of comments, order is very important.

> So it's not correct to say that comments must be marked up in an <ol>.

I did not write "must" but "should".

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 Thursday, 14 April 2011 16:34:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:46 UTC