Re: proposed li:marker pseudo-class

Tina Holmboe wrote:

>   What I am saying is that there exist no other mechanism in HTML, or
>   for that matter in XHTML, for /explicitly/ stating that order is
>   significant except OL*.
> 

I think that is because the current HTML specification still has 
elements of the old school style of internet specification, in which it 
isn't necessary to specify everything with SHALLs and MUST NOTs.  I 
think it is intended to be read in the context of commonsense use of 
paragraphs and headings in which the order of the paragraphs and heading 
is implicitly significant (either strongly, in a narrative, or weakly in 
that later parts reply on concepts introduced in earlier parts).

One could have a markup language based on formal sequence, selection, 
iteration and set constructs, but that would not be for the target 
audience of HTML.

(I suspect in the concrete case that the numbering isn't actually for 
ordering - I think the divisions would have been described as steps, not 
sections.  I suspect it is really to allow references to made verbally 
or from non-web documents (including hard copies of the document itself) 
without using technical web language (URLs with fragments).)
-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.

Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 12:47:30 UTC