[whatwg] Suggest making <dt> and <dd> valid in <ol>

Jukka K. Korpela jkorpela at cs.tut.fi
Sun Jul 15 22:11:49 PDT 2012

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 important if you only do that in markup, without affecting 
rendering, search engines, etc., at all? It's like invisible ink in a 
book. If it is somehow relevant to say that the order is unimportant, 
you have to, well, *say* it (in words).

The only reason for this "unordered" list idea (a list is by definition 
unordered; a set, or a multiset, is not) is the willingness to keep <ul> 
and <ol> in HTML (it would be very impractical to omit one of them) 
without admitting that they were introduced, and are being used, simply 
for bulleted and numbered lists. So this resembles the confusing play 
with words regarding <i> and <b>.


More information about the whatwg mailing list