- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:42:48 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, L. David Baron wrote: > > The following are comments on section 2.8 (Lists) of the 2006-02-16 > draft of Web Applications 1.0 [1]. > > The text on list numbering seems to lack conformance criteria. The term > "ordinal value" of a list item should probably more clearly be a > definition (and not split into multiple places), and there should > perhaps be some user-agent conformance criteria regarding the ordinal > value of a list item. However, such requirements should be careful not > to require a specific display when stylesheets change the display from > the default. Well, the spec defines what the ordinal values of the list items are, but I don't really know what other normative criteria you would want. Note that there will be a separate section purely for the rendering rules that may cover how to render list items, but that doesn't affect the definition of OL elements. > Also, section 2.8.3 seems to suggest that the value attribute on li > applies only to the first list item, whereas 2.8.1 says it works on all > li elements. I couldn't work out to what you were referring here. The sections seem consistent, as far as I can tell. > This section should perhaps also give error handling requirements for > list items that are not a child of a ul, ol, or menu, regarding list > numbering semantics. >From a rendering perspective that will be covered by the rendering section. I've added a note, however, that when the <li> is not in an <ol>/<ul>/<menu> element, it does not have list-related relationships with other <li> elements. > Should this specification describe the type attribute for ul, ol, and li > elements that is in HTML4? I believe it's widely implemented. Is it non-presentational in some way? If it is purely presentational, it will be defined in the rendering section. Spec updated. Thanks, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 10 March 2006 11:42:48 UTC