This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-ul-element Comment: Second example snippet is identical to the first. Posted from: 67.183.57.218
Sorry, I didn't read closely enough. The actual problem is that the second example snippet, like the first, is a list of countries, but the accompanying text says that "they are given in order of the size of their current account balance in 2007," which makes no sense.
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Did Not Understand Request Change Description: no spec change Rationale: I don't understand. Why does that make no sense?
I apologize for not being more clear. The text I am talking about reads: "The items in the snippet above are given in alphabetical order, but in the snippet below they are given in order of the size of their current account balance in 2007, without changing the meaning of the document whatsoever". However, the list itself is a list of countries, making the "account balance in 2007" reference confusing. The spec does not mention account balances anywhere else, which leads me to wonder if this sentence is an artifact of a different example that used to be here. To better fit the example, the sentence might be rewritten as "The items in the snippet above are given in alphabetical order, but in the snippet below they are given in the order in which the author first lived in each one, without changing the meaning of the document whatsoever" (although then the list itself would have to be reordered as in the first snippet under <ol>, for consistency). Or a different rationale could be cited, e.g.: "...in the snippet below they are given in a random order, without changing the meaning of the document whatsoever."
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: The example is actually entirely as intended currently. There are three examples with the same list. One in the <ol> section, where the order _does_ matter, because the order is the order in which I lived in those countries. Then there are two examples in the <ul> section, where the order is incidental, but showing that the lists are still ordered the first example is alphabetical, and the second example has the countries listed by their net worth in 2007 (their "account balance"). In the two <ul> cases, the order doesn't really matter, but they are still ordered. That is the point that this example is trying to make. Does that make more sense? I don't really know how to make it clearer in the spec.