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

[Bug 14548] Grouping Content: algorithm for incrementing value (OL->LI @value) does not match any current user agent

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:39:03 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RJ6VL-0006h5-Gl@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14548

--- Comment #4 from Daniel.S <crazy-daniel@gmx.de> 2011-10-26 16:38:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I was only testing release versions.

I admit, it's difficult to stay up to date in the current situation. But I
think it' important to take into account even the latest changes.

> I don't know if @value is being reintroduced for backwards-compatibility with
> pages written to take advantage of older user agents, or if it is intended to
> be used with its new behavior going forward to unify HTML with various author
> requirements. If it's the former, then the behavior of browsers of the future
> are less critical. Also note that the current behavior, as I reported it, has
> been stable and predicable for over 10 years in these browsers - I usually
> went back to the very first versions. IE 2 was the only major exception to
> browser "families" in their whole existence, and that's not a browser that
> *anyone* is trying to be compatible with.

A part of the web authoring community, including myself, feels that the start
and value attributes have erratically been removed from HTML 4 Strict. There
are cases where numbering is important, for example if a ordered list is
shortened, you still want the index to be the same.

Besides, all browsers already allow negative numbering, so lifting the
restriction on value makes sense.

Browsers are stable here, because the issue simply isn't really a big deal.
Apparently interoperability wasn't necessary in the past.

> I think the table reflects that, yes? Most browsers only failed about three
> tests; just not the same ones :-(

Yes, sorry for repetitions.

> Do you have any idea what the actual usage of otherwise-valid integer values
> prepended with U+002B PLUS SIGN actually is? I would guess it would be
> extremely rare.

I'd guess the same.

> Really, I would imagine that the best idea of what do, exactly, would come
> from considering the question: is this mostly for the benefit of legacy
> documents, or is there some reconsideration of where list values fit in the
> content/structure/presentation triumvirate?

See above :) There is some content value in li@value.

-- 
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 Wednesday, 26 October 2011 16:39:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:02:06 UTC