Re: <UL> cited as <OL> (was : [css3-webfonts] Downloaded fonts should not...)

fantasai wrote:

 > Philip TAYLOR wrote:
 >>
 >> Apropos of an earlier discussion, here is an
 >> interesting (and perhaps classic) example of
 >> an unordered list (as perceived by its author)
 >> being cited as an ordered list by a commentator :

> Philip, this [1] is off-topic.

Odd you should think that, because when this issue
was first raised on the WWW-HTML list [2], David Woolley
argued that it should have been raised on the WWW-STYLE
list (see below).

> David Woolley wrote:
>> 
>> Tina Holmboe wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 11:14:24AM +0100, David Woolley wrote:
>> 
>>>
>>>   Um. And www-svg for CSS feature requests? www-style, perhaps?
>> 
>> Oops.  Yes I did mean www-style@w3.org!
>> 
>>>   Perhaps I am confused, but I certainly can see no difficulty in
>>>   claiming that "this is a list of items, each of which has a heading"
>>>   and label it a perfectly valid use-case?
>> 
>> Because it is not a numbered list.
>> 
>> If you take the position that this is a numbered list, then simple 
>> documents, that would normally be done with Hn and P are really 
>> unnumbered lists and should be done with UL and LI, with the marker 
>> styled out of the LIs.
>> 
>> Furthermore, to a large extent, whether or not the headings are numbered 
>>  is a styling issue, and would be specified in a narrative style sheet 
>> for someone manually doing the layout, so it is wrong that the HTML 
>> should differ from that for a document without section numbers or with 
>> the section numbers included in the Hn elements.
>> 
>> (One common reason for wanting to force numbered headings in [X]HTML 
>> documents is because one is trying to reproduced legal documents, 
>> particarly statutes, accurately, but in that case it is probably 
>> dangerous to allow automatic numbering.)
>> 
>> (In at least one version of XHTML2 this would be done with section and h 
>> elements, and the h elements styled to include the numbers.)

[1] Message-ID: <47FE12BE.1080403@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
     Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:14:38 +0100
     From: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
     To: Ambrose Li <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
     CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>,  www-style@w3.org
     References: <2285a9d20804090900k8aa02fek9d4dbdfb9c8d18cd@mail.gmail.com>  <20080410074928.GA9169@ridley.dbaron.org>  <47FDDAAD.90506@inkedblade.net> <af2cae770804100542n11a552e0s66eab5a0f9855a9c@mail.gmail.com>
     In-Reply-To: <af2cae770804100542n11a552e0s66eab5a0f9855a9c@mail.gmail.com>
     Subject: <UL> cited as <OL> (was :  [css3-webfonts] Downloaded fonts should  not...)

[2] Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 10:38:01 -0500 (CDT)
     From: Mark Alford <alford@wuphys.wustl.edu>
     To: www-html@w3.org
     Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804011024240.27470@marcion.wustl.edu>
     Subject: proposed li:marker pseudo-class

Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 21:34:07 UTC