- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:34:09 +0300
- To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
2012-07-14 10:46, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Ian Yang <ian.html@gmail.com> wrote: >> By seeing such contents, we usually code it using definition list (<dl>). >> At first, I was thinking the same idea. But then I realized that stages in >> a life cycle should be regarded as ordered contents. > > I would recommend not over-thinking the matter. Otherwise soon you > will start wrapping your <p>s in <ol>/<li>s too to ensure they stay in > the correct order. Indeed. The <ol> element is no more and no less ordered than <ul> or any other element. Many HTML tag names are misleading. > (The specification points this out as well: "The order of the list of > groups, and of the names and values within each group, may be > significant.") That's actually a questionable statement there, since it may make the read ask whether the order of sub-elements is *generally* significant. It's as questionable as it would be to write "The order of successive p elements may be significant" or "The order of successive section elements may be significant". Yucca
Received on Saturday, 14 July 2012 08:34:45 UTC