- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 03:55:01 +0100
- To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Cc: Daniel Glazman <glazman@netscape.com>, <www-html@w3.org>
* Tantek Çelik wrote: >There are absolutely uses for start and value attributes. I can see marking >up the markers with tags rather than attributes, but certainly in the >immediate future it makes sense to undeprecate start and value while a >better solution is worked out. If the HTML WG is willing to work out a better solution, could we please hear it's consensus on what problem is to be solved, first? Without start and value attributes, ordered lists are continuous, have logically a first, a second, a third, etc. item and it doesn't matter how a user agent renders this information. Now some people provided use cases for ordered lists where the rendering of item numbers is "content" and thus important. Shall XHTML 2.0 provide support for this type of ordered lists? If this is a valid use case, the start and value attributes provide no solution. Others like to have reversely ordered lists, if this is to be considered, the value attribute is a solution, but a rather bad one. People provided use cases for ordered lists broken into several parts, others like to use non-continuous lists, etc. There are many requests and I agree with some of them and I disagree with others, thus I think a more fruiteful discussion should start with requirements and use cases rather than a solution and claiming there are uses for it. I just cannot decide whether the start and value attributes are a good solution or whatever else would be a better solution, if I don't know the problem or don't think the problem needs to be solved at all. So, asking again, would the HTML WG please collect requirements and use cases for ordered lists in XHTML 2.0, discuss them and provide it's consensus to the community? This would certainly help a lot. regards.
Received on Monday, 17 March 2003 21:54:09 UTC