Re: [whatwg] Suggest making <dt> and <dd> valid in <ol>

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/