12492 2011-04-14 13:57:36 +0000 In the article element definition, the nested article exemple should use <ol> 2011-08-04 05:06:51 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML5 spec unspecified All All RESOLVED WONTFIX P4 normal --- 1 olivier.gendrin contributor eoconnor ian mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking webmaster public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 47433 0 olivier.gendrin 2011-04-14 13:57:36 +0000 In the examples for "4.4.4 The article element", the nested example uses comments in a blog. The code for the comments should use <ol><li> as comments are an ordered list of reactions. <section> <h1>Comments</h1> <ol> <li> <article> <footer> <p>Posted by: George Washington</p> <p><time pubdate datetime="2009-10-10T19:10-08:00"></time></p> </footer> <p>Yeah! Especially when talking about your lobbyist friends!</p> </article> </li> <li> <article> <footer> <p>Posted by: George Hammond</p> <p><time pubdate datetime="2009-10-10T19:15-08:00"></time></p> </footer> <p>Hey, you have the same first name as me.</p> </article> </li> </ol> </section> 47449 1 eoconnor 2011-04-14 15:37:12 +0000 <ol> isn't the only source of ordering semantics in markup—document order is itself semantic. (You can't reorder the <p> elements in an article without destroying meaning, and the same goes for comments.) So it's not correct to say that comments must be marked up in an <ol>. 47451 2 olivier.gendrin 2011-04-14 16:34:08 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) > <ol> isn't the only source of ordering semantics in markup—document order is > itself semantic. (You can't reorder the <p> elements in an article without > destroying meaning, and the same goes for comments.) So why bother with <ol> ? IMHO, <ol> indicates a strong importance to the content order, <p> indicates a weak importance, and <ul> indicated no importance at all (I can remove some <p> in articles without loosing too much data/ideas -- that is what is done when resuming a book in school, I can't remove an item into a <ol> without changing the result). And in the case of comments, order is very important. > So it's not correct to say that comments must be marked up in an <ol>. I did not write "must" but "should". 47461 3 webmaster 2011-04-14 23:42:51 +0000 Using ol for items this long does not solve any real problem. It will probably confuse users of screen reading software that will hear "list item" and then a complete comment. It will introduce problems with CSS, since not everyone is using CSS resets. It will make the markup more bloated. In short: No benefit and lots of trouble. And the source order by itself carries enough meaning. The list element is not supposed to arbitrarily say "for this the order is really, really important". And since people nowadays seem to abuse lists almost as much as the abused tables a few years ago, this would be encouraging the wrong kind of behavior. 51162 4 ian 2011-07-15 21:36:18 +0000 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: see comment 1 and comment 2. Comments aren't a list. 53118 5 mike 2011-08-04 05:06:51 +0000 mass-moved component to LC1