Posted by dorayme on 02/02/07 20:23

In article <csSdnY-z_bC2X1_YnZ2dnUVZ_qKknZ2d@comcast.com>,
Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:

> Um, but, my point is
> that in this HTML standards thingie we are grappling with, a <ul> is not
> numbered and a <ol> is and the nomenclature chosen for them is silly.
> The lists are both in order and the order matters in virtually all
> cases.

In a short shopping list, it often does not matter. Nor in a list
of links (how many of us have wondered, what does it matter which
order we put them in regarding any semantic message to the
reader).

But such cavalierity could cause disaster in an algorithm.

About numbering, that is quite optional in <ol>s, I am not sure
what it is you are objecting to.

It is true, of course, that <ul>s have a de facto order. But if
you are really finding that you are using such an order to convey
information (as, for example, in giving an algorithm - possibly
similar to the case that started this thread) then this needs to
be made clear in some way if it is not simply obvious from
context. By the use of number ordering, for instance. By some
words to the effect of like "Do these in order". It seems to me,
to come back and add to my original point, it is not so illogical
to use ul if you also otherwise make clear an order. The idea of
<ol>, as far as I can see is to make it context independent. In
fact, I suspect people sometimes use <ol> in the html when it
does not matter what the order is but they wish to give the items
a handle for referral purposes later. Frankly, I think this part
of html could be simplified but I won't go on...

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]