- From: voracity <subs@voracity.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:33:28 +1000
Lachlan Hunt wrote: > We already have a generic list element. I'm sure you've heard of it ? > it's called <ul>. Why reinvent the wheel, when it rolls out a list just > fine? My bad. I actually don't want a generic list element (be it <list> or <ul>), I was merely speculating. I would prefer <datalist> because it clearly specifies what the list is --- a list of data. (As opposed to a list of summary points, or a list of links, or a navigation menu. <ul> is used to represent all of these --- which is, IMO, to the detriment of meaning.) >> and then have a 'type' attribute to specialise it for whatever >> purpose you want (since there is no <list> tag atm). > > I don't like the idea of overloading the type attribute any more than > it currently is in HTML 4. XHTML 2 is fixing that by making type only > represent the content type of an external resource, and (currently) in > some situations the content type of the content within the element (as > in <style> and <script>). Ideally, the type attribute should only > represent the content type of an external resource, but we'll have to > wait and see if that small inconsistency can be fixed or not. OTOH, > HTML 4 uses the type attribute for 10 different reasons on different > elements (some presentationally), so please don't overload it any more. Fair enough. Type (like class or category or kind) is a generic word meaning 'belongs to the set'. It's unsurprising it gets overused, and I agree it should be avoided.
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2004 23:33:28 UTC