- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 20:04:20 +0300 (EEST)
- To: www-html@w3.org
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Shane McCarron wrote: > Remember that, to some extent, there is a large user base that we need > to take care of here. We don't want to start changing the names of > commonly used elements or attributes without some compelling reason. XHTML 2.0 is by design incompatible with previous versions of HTML. I think that's a wrong move, but as long as that's the policy, I see little reason to preserve poorly designed elements. > Also, this is really about the semantics, not the presentation. If you > put stuff in an "ol" list you are saying "the order of these items is > important, and likely critical to understanding the information". No, I'm not. It's just explicit numbering. I want to make some points, and I number them, for example in order to refer them elsewhere in the document, or outside it. > If > you put stuff in a "ul" list, you are saying "the order of this stuff is > what I used when writing the document, but the order is not critical to > understanding the information". At least, that is how I think it should > be interpreted. Does that apply to a sequence of paragraphs, too? If the order of <li> elements does not matter (when they appear as subelements of <ul>), why would the mutual order of other elements matter? It's still a _list_. Not a collection or set of items. -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2005 17:04:25 UTC