This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 9798 - The type attribute on <ol> and <ul> is semantic and should be permitted
Summary: The type attribute on <ol> and <ul> is semantic and should be permitted
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All All
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: LC
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/grouping...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 9799
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2010-05-22 15:33 UTC by Leif Halvard Silli
Modified: 2010-10-04 14:31 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Leif Halvard Silli 2010-05-22 15:33:17 UTC
* @type on <ul>,<ol>,<li> corresponds to the CSS list-style-type property.
* HTML5 obsoletes @type on <ol>,<ul>,<li> and instead recommend CSS.  

The deciion to obsolete @type must have been based on the view that @type is a stylistic attribute. 

However, it is not logical to view @type as purely stylistic. Consider how, in law texts, one refers to exact places in the text by referring to specific numbers and letters. When using CSS instead of ul@type or ol@type, such enumerated references would not be meaningful in user agents without support for CSS.

A consequence of viewing @type as a stylistic attribute must be that even the default decimal enumaration  of <ol> elements, as well as the default styling of <ul> elements, is *also* purely stylistic - authors shouldn't rely on them, but instead type the number manually, if the number is significant to the interpreation of the list.

There might, however, not be a valid use case for the type attribute on the <li> element. Thus, I do not consider it as a bug that @type is obsoleted on <li>.

SOLUTION:  @type on <ol>, <ul> is semantic and should be permitted. A separate bug on the permitted syntax will be filed (the HTML4 syntax should be permitted, but CSS syntax should also be permitted)
Comment 1 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2010-08-18 01:26:41 UTC
Might make sense to add this to <ol>. Not sure how it makes sense on <ul> or <li>.
Comment 2 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2010-09-24 21:59:02 UTC
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: Partially Accepted
Change Description: see diff given below
Rationale: Added <ol type>. I don't really see the use case for the other two.
Comment 3 contributor 2010-09-24 21:59:40 UTC
Checked in as WHATWG revision r5478.
Check-in comment: Reintroduce <ol type> as conforming.
http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=5477&to=5478