RE: FW: OL needs the start attribute

Bertilo Wennergren:
> Philip TAYLOR [PC336/H-XP]:
> 
> > "Peter Foti (PeterF)" wrote:
> 
> 
> > > I agree. If the numbering is considered critical to the
> > understanding of the
> > > document, then it is content.
> 
> 
> > /Prima facie/, I agree;  but how then would you propose marking
> > up such a list?
> 
> 
> In XHTML as it is now there is no other option than to use "ul", and
> take care of the numbering yourself.


I disagree.  I think the <table> option is the better solution because <ul>
implies that there is no ordering.

 
> This is of course paradoxical. Totally unordered lists are "ul". Lists
> that have order, but where it's not all that important how the that
> ordering is presented, get "ol" (perhaps with some CSS 
> suggestions). But
> lists that are so strictly ordered that the details of that order, and
> the numbers etc. that indicate it, are essential, get "ul". 


I don't think they should get <ul>.


> That kind of
> leads to the conclusion that "ol" is a failure...


In many ways, I think it is.  But way back in the day when <ol> was created,
the web was much more simplistic, and it probably met the needs at the time.
But now that tag soup is being replaced with CSS, and the web is more
interesting, <ol> falls short.  :)

-Pete

Received on Thursday, 17 October 2002 15:11:58 UTC