|
|
Posted by Jukka K. Korpela on 02/03/06 10:31
Stan McCann <me@stanmccann.us> wrote:
> OK, I found where it does say "information on author" but in the
> expanded text that clarifies usage, it says "used by authors to
> supply contact information for a document or a major part of a
> document" which you snipped. So, the W3C provides two statements
> that contradict each other. "information on author" != "used by
> authors."
That's no contradiction. You can take the longer descriptive phrase as
what it is, a note on usage rather than a definition. Even if you
treated both as normative, there is no contradiction: they would be two
requirements, and then correct usage would satisfy both requirements.
> I use the two semantically, I think. For lists where order does
> not matter, I use <ul>. Where the order of the items does matter,
> I use <ol>.
The only semantics assigned to those elements, apart from their being
lists of course, is in the phrases "unordered list" and "ordered list".
I wonder how much meaning we can read into these phrases (or expansions
of the names of the elements). After all, nobody has ever suggested
that a browser would be allowed to reorder a <ul> as it likes when
rendering it or that the order in it could be taken as insignificant.
These elements reflect the word processor software practice of offering
"bulleted lists" and "numbered lists". I would say that the difference
is basically stylistic, with a potential semantic flavor.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|