- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:42:34 +0100
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote: > 2012-07-14 10:46, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> (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[er] > 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". I believe it was added to the specification for the kind of question that came up here. The "why do we have <ul> and <ol> but not <dl> and <odl>?" question. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Saturday, 14 July 2012 13:43:02 UTC