Ian Hickson on Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:31:44 + (UTC), wrote:
It's certainly true that many element names are derived more from
historical accidents than their current semantics, but ol and ul are
semantically quite different, as the spec describes.
Specifically, ol implies that the order
Ian Yang on Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:04:48 +0800, wrote:
From previous discussions, some people had suggested possible markup for
life cycle type contents. And personally I will stick to using dl until
there is a better solution.
There is still one thing left unanswered. And that's whether we
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Leif Halvard Silli
xn--mlform-...@xn--mlform-iua.no wrote:
Ian Yang on Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:04:48 +0800, wrote:
From previous discussions, some people had suggested possible markup for
life cycle type contents. And personally I will stick to using dl
until
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Ian Yang i...@invigoreight.com wrote:
Like above examples, the following dl is not well organized, and it's
also a pain to read it:
dl
dtLorem Ipsum/dt
ddSit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit./dd
dtAliquam Viverra/dt
ddFringilla
From previous discussions, some people had suggested possible markup for
life cycle type contents. And personally I will stick to using dl until
there is a better solution.
There is still one thing left unanswered. And that's whether we will be
able to put li inside dl.
Let's consider form we
On 19/07/2012 08:04, Ian Yang wrote:
Since the *optional *use of li in dl could solve many problems, may we
have li being valid in dl?
Probably not, as it has similar drawbacks as the proposed di element:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Alex Bishop alexbis...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/07/2012 08:04, Ian Yang wrote:
Since the *optional *use of li in dl could solve many problems, may we
have li being valid in dl?
Probably not, as it has similar drawbacks as the proposed di element:
On 20/07/12 10:52 AM, Ian Yang wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Alex Bishopalexbis...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/07/2012 08:04, Ian Yang wrote:
Since the *optional *use ofli indl could solve many problems, may we
haveli being valid indl?
Probably not, as it has similar drawbacks as
2012/7/16 Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012, Ian Yang wrote:
Recently I was involved in a project. One of its pages has a special
content which is like a life cycle. There are several stages in the
cycle, each stage has a term followed by some text describing the term.
Let's
2012/7/16 Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi
2012-07-16 5:36, Ian Yang wrote:
Imo, ul means the order of the items is unimportant, not browsers can
render the items in any order.
But if the order is unimportant, there still _is_ an order. Being
unordered would be something else.
The
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
2012-07-16 5:36, Ian Yang wrote:
Imo, ul means the order of the items is unimportant, not browsers
can render the items in any order.
But if the order is unimportant, there still _is_ an order.
The specification even mentions that the order
2012/7/15 Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi
2012-07-14 18:51, Ian Yang wrote:
If ol is no more and no less ordered than ul,
what's the purpose of its introduction?
The real purposes, in the dawn of HTML, were that ol and ul correspond
to numbered and bulleted lists, respectively,
2012-07-15 17:40, Ian Yang wrote:
Throughout the article, I saw it mentioned bullets and numbers
frequently. However, that's just browsers' default rendering of ul and
ol.
It's the only real difference between the two.
As a coder, personally I don't care how browsers render them by
Sat, 14 Jul 2012 23:53:32 +0800, from Ian Yang
Okay, it seems that one of the ideas I mentioned in my original email
needs
to be revamped.
I was saying that using general heading (H1) and paragraph (p) loses
the meaning of definition term and definition description, but I didn't
realize
2012/7/16 Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi
2012-07-15 17:40, Ian Yang wrote:
Throughout the article, I saw it mentioned bullets and numbers
frequently. However, that's just browsers' default rendering of ul and
ol.
It's the only real difference between the two.
Sorry, I still don't
2012/7/16 Leif H Silli xn--mlform-...@xn--mlform-iua.no
Sat, 14 Jul 2012 23:53:32 +0800, from Ian Yang
Okay, it seems that one of the ideas I mentioned in my original email
needs to be revamped.
I was saying that using general heading (H1) and paragraph (p) loses
the meaning of definition
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012, Ian Yang wrote:
Recently I was involved in a project. One of its pages has a special
content which is like a life cycle. There are several stages in the
cycle, each stage has a term followed by some text describing the term.
Let's take the life cycle of butterfly for
2012-07-16 5:36, Ian Yang wrote:
Imo, ul means the order of the items is unimportant, not browsers can
render the items in any order.
But if the order is unimportant, there still _is_ an order. Being
unordered would be something else. And what would it matter to indicate
the order as
2012-07-14 10:46, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Ian Yang ian.h...@gmail.com wrote:
By seeing such contents, we usually code it using definition list (dl).
At first, I was thinking the same idea. But then I realized that stages in
a life cycle should be regarded as
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi wrote:
2012-07-14 10:46, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
(The specification points this out as well: The order of the list of
groups, and of the names and values within each group, may be
significant.)
That's actually a
2012/7/14 Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
I would recommend not over-thinking the matter. Otherwise soon you
will start wrapping your ps in ol/lis too to ensure they stay in
the correct order.
That wouldn't be the problem. General ps of an article never are list
contents, so we surely
2012/7/14 Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi
Indeed. The ol element is no more and no less ordered than ul or any
other element. Many HTML tag names are misleading.
That's interesting. If ol is no more and no less ordered than ul,
what's the purpose of its introduction? Could you provide
Okay, it seems that one of the ideas I mentioned in my original email needs
to be revamped.
I was saying that using general heading (H1) and paragraph (p) loses
the meaning of definition term and definition description, but I didn't
realize that using ol loses the meaning of definition list. That
2012-07-14 18:51, Ian Yang wrote:
If ol is no more and no less ordered than ul,
what's the purpose of its introduction?
The real purposes, in the dawn of HTML, were that ol and ul
correspond to numbered and bulleted lists, respectively, reflecting two
very common concepts in word
24 matches
Mail list logo
